The Big Bang is Probably Not What You Think It Is
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- What do cosmologists mean when they say Big Bang? Perhaps not what we think. The Big Bang poster is available here: store.dftba.co...
There are many descriptions of the big bang out there that are wrong. Anything that says the universe exploded from an infinitely small, dense and hot point, known as a big bang singularity, are out of date, but I’ve seen this description in many places on the internet and diagrams. I’ve even been guilty of saying this too! But I’ve recently updated my understanding, so here is what cosmologists actually mean when they say big bang.
Special thanks to Katie Mack for some cosmology help: / astrokatie
#space #bigbang #DomainOfScience
Human Errors:
1. I got the time that matter and antimatter annihilation happened. I should have said it happened within the first second instead of the first few minutes.
- Some Awesome People --
And many thanks to my $10 supporters on Patreon, you are awesome!
Theodore Chu
Sebastian
Join the gang and help support me produce free and high quality science content:
/ domainofscience
#bigbang #space #physics
-- Posters ---
DFTBA Store: store.dftba.co...
RedBubble Store: www.redbubble....
Help me make amazing science videos on Patreon:
Patreon: / domainofscience
I have also made posters available for educational use which you can find here: www.flickr.com...
-- My Science Books ---
I also write science books for kids! You can see them all here:
profastrocat.com
-- Follow me around the internet, wait that sounds weird --
dominicwalliman...
/ dominicwalliman
/ dominicwalliman
/ domainofscience
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.
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.
Hooray for the neutrinos!! They freed themselves from bondage!! (1:39)
🥳
Neutrino Life Matters.
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? ua-cam.com/video/m7C9TjdziPE/v-deo.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...
Very helpful. Thank 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.
@@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!
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.
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 😉
Scientific concepts are always so much clearer when they're illustrated in a chalkboard-like font. ^^
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?
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.
Here is an updated version
*we don't know*
good job
smart
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 ;)
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'. ua-cam.com/video/J3xLuZNKhlY/v-deo.html
@@ceticamente ua-cam.com/video/XBr4GkRnY04/v-deo.html
@@girv98 thanks!
This still sounds like a fairytale, just throw a bunch of time to any story and anything is possible, that even nothing suddenly becomes something. 30 years from now it will be some other theory. However, are we better off trying to figure out how to live life on earth more effectively?
Raidan Bolt 30 years from now, it will still be the “Big Bang” theory
You talk like someone just pulled random numbers for time on an afternoon and called it a day. It's an endless effort from many scientists based on data to explain things that we already know. It doesn't mean they are necessarily accurate, but don't call other's works a fairytale. 30 years from now it will be a better theory due to research, because science is ever growing and that's not a flaw, that's a virtue. If it didn't grow then it would be a religious theory.
Also, no research on space harms any research on humanity's today's necessities.
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
"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
@@zuubaa239 Nice joke
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.
"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 😂
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...
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!
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 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!
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😁
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.
"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....
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.
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.
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..
The Best Explanation on how the universe began is through the Big Bang Theory everyone says..... But the real question is.... Is there a God? What are the chances that bits of energy and molecules form together and burst, creating a universe where there is a planet where life is habitable. Take a puzzle for example. If you take all the pieces in the box and you just randomly toss them all into the air, its not going to land on the ground in the exact places to form the puzzle. And even if it somehow did, there had to be a creator. Those pieces didn't fly up in the air by themselves, you would have had to throw them into the air first. This is my big bang theory. God said it and BANG it happened. (This is just my opinion. But please think about it) Thank you for reading this if you did.
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.
But guess what.
I already knew this... mindblowing, right?
Dude, I am just being one of those people that always say I already knew this, it's not a crime if you don't kmow, you know now at least. 😂
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!
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.
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!
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...
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.
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
"Once upon a time, a long, long, long...... time ago."
in a thousand theories explanation later.
At 3:43 he says “the OLD Big Bang theory”... What’s to say the current theory any good or will it be thrown out too? Do these guys have a handle on anything except landing research grants?
Nope.
We're always learning things, and as we're learning things our understanding of things changes too. Learning stops when everything about what we're learning has been understood. Therefore since we're still learning means we haven't understood everything. Do you catch my drift? Solid science from a few years ago is outdated today. So please don't imply science is useless. Otherwise you'd still be taught that an eclipse is an omen from God, bloodletting can cure diseases and lead can be used for makeup.
Hudaef Cares? I never said science was useless. I think at some point diminishing returns kick in and our efforts should be vectored to more tangible goals like cancer and Alzheimer research. Resources are limited, and the US is 23 trillion in debt!
Finite man in an infinite universe is infinitesimal. Ergo, We can study till the universe collapses and not make a scratch. Hence let’s study what can make a difference rather than fund somebody’s hobby. Cheers from an old curmudgeon mechanical engineer.
@@danbenson7587 Oh that? Just a few days ago I watched a youtube video that said scientists have discovered a nifty little cell can and has destroyed cancer cells. It's been confirmed too, just that they're not sure how that cell is picking out cancer cells from normal ones. It was on SciShow I think, it sounded promising. NASA is allotted its budget, but so are other branches of science. Plus NASA had a rather small budget last year, $21 billion. Meanwhile the US military had a stupid amount of budget, like $600 billion.
Hudaef Cares? Saw Same about Cardiff U’s cancer discovery .. a long way to go, but encouraging.
Yep defense is expensive, but there is evil in this world. Defense is necessary (how much is questionable); arguably NASA isn’t.
I don’t dislike NASA, but it has hit diminishing returns. Currently it’s a bureaucrat’s “protect the check” government constituency. 23$ billion ain’t chicken feed.
You owe $76,000 on the national debt, what have you to show for it? In a debt environment research should promise returns; a surplus environment can indulge in salving curiosity.
You deserve an oscar for your maps! Cheers from Germany
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.
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
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.
"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!
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'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..
How can something be INFINITELY dense and the starts to be less infinitely dense lol. Infinity is not a number.
“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
It slows down then speeds up again..Ya..Ok so we dont know what is happening do we..
Keep it real, save our time and just say y'all don't know shit
He says: WE DON'T KNOW! A lot. So why are you believing that what he's saying is true!!!!
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.
But don't General Theory of Relativity predicts that the universe shall began from singularity?
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.
From the dawn of the universe, there was nothing. Then, boom! The Big Bang sent six elemental crystals, hurtling across the virgin universe. These Infinity Stones each control an essential aspect of existence.
I went to school with a girl who's nickname was "BIG BANG" 😆
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)
Finally, an accurate, concise, and intelligent explanation I can show my daughter! Thanks
So let me get this straight. There was nothing, and then all of a sudden, there was something? Alrighty then...
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.
Uhhh....can someone time stamp when the video gives the answer to what was the big bang?😵💫
>> "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.
Could we be the other end of a black hole? BTW, can a black hole capture dark matter and dark energy?
I'm so early in comment section big bang hasn't even occured
Why simple problems get complicated?
Bakit nagiging komplikado ang simple?
ua-cam.com/video/s5IkKMd6MXo/v-deo.html
2020 and people still think that our universe is made with luck..
What was the universe expanding and inflating into?
At 2:05 "photons fly free," think Tom Hanks in Cast Away after making fire; the sparks go up, "you're free!"
I still like calling it the Big Bang. I got 4 kids from the Big Bang why not all of creation too. lol :)
Vedio clips of UFO destroying in Mexico is trending is it real
But what is all the stuff around the single point in which the universe begin. ?
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.
SOOOOO now their changing the description to counter the VALID arguements and inconsistencies in the big bang theory. 🤣🤣🤣. Should have made all this clear from the giddy.!! NOT after your ecieve 1000's of VALID counter points.
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.)
The most amazing thing is that we can possibly be completely wrong
Maybe the start of inflation should be a philosophical question?
....and given that it is buttressed by umpteen ad hoc, completely arbitrary hypotheses, e.g. 'inflation theory', 'dark matter', etc ....is likely wrong.
Once upon a time there was nothing,
( no time either ),
Then suddenly nothing exploded,
And there was something !
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!
Would we not say that a black hole had reached critical mass and could not contain its contents... so it would not be a big bang, but a big release.... and the universe was born??
My understanding is small, but this is similar to what I think may happen. like a black hole releases contents and everything around it gets pushed away farther and farther. maybe way beyond the observable universe are infinite universes expanding and expanding. But I'm sure I am wrong. there are a few problems with my idea. 1 is that of it were the case its possible another universe might push us from a black hole release. though maybe all black holes release to a center point like a garbage disposal site and that is causing the expansion.
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?
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.
I realised how earlier I used to think that there was really an explosion and that's how the universe was created. But today I watched this video got updated yeee. It was awesome thank you for sharing this with all of us :D
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 😂
In Big Bang Theory and Your Expansion/Inflation theory both have so many things in common, first the expansion from relatively from very tiny point (in case of BB) and a tiny curved ball in your case. secondly they both tell the universe is expanding, and so on. Apart from the starting point there is no significant change in the theory other than explaining the same thing in different words. Being said that... there are 5 unanswered questions common in both. To me, Big Bang theory is more explanatory, concrete than yours. Coz after inflation time, its super confusing to understand where did the light come from? or how did matter formed? despite having same curiosity in BB theory but with less confusion as the whole energy/light came from the explosion. I still need more "we know" rather than "dont know".
Hysteresis biFurca(VITA)tion 4.7
Whenever I asked about what happened before big bang, people in internet looked at me as if I'm a stupid anti-vaxx mom or something.
@J Wil noone says nor is scared of god being behind big bang, because
1. No current religion has a god that would fit in this scenario - most say that universe was made few k years ago
2. How can matter/energy not exist before big bang, but a complex consciousness can?
Someone or something propably is behind BB, but for sure its not god that in his biography said he created visible universe in 7 days.
What was the universe expanding and inflating into?
Intro: most models are wrong
Present: a model looks like those previous model
I am missing something?
I think the difference is in the fact that the universe was not infinitely small at the begining but rather something with a finite size. And also that there was no matter in the very early universe
This video was absolutely amazing. It's so enjoyable to realize something new and get to know your world better. thank you very much
Um, are you sure you really know Big Bang or anything at all? :)
It is crazy how the Quran said when describing the creation of the universe that it was created in 6 stages 😳
It’s crazy how Quran said that Semen originates from the back bone of humans and meteorites are shit at devils.
Did you call the universe flat? 😆
Ayo space is fucking flat! Nice!
Dear Dominic,
I found this as most lucid UA-cam video on 'Big Bang' theory in cosmology and quantum physics. Also, almost accurate. Thank you Dr. Dominic Walliman for your valuable efforts.
Scientists needs to learn naming things properly
Big Bang is just like fairy dust! Just like Dark energy, Dark matter, or the magical Oort cloud!