It just vanish in a state of nothingness. Don't forget that only a human being can feel the Univers through his 5 sense. The immensity of space is black, but black represent a colour that we can see. Nothingness is much deeper than that, it is a place where there's no matter and no energy, that mean we can't see it. Thats why we will never be able to see or comprehend the "end" of space.
Einstein's SPECIAL Relativity: No physical object can move THROUGH space faster than light. Einstein's GENERAL Relativity: SPACE bends and curves and is the source of the force of gravity. Physical objects can and do move WITH expanding space faster than light. The SPECIAL Theory of Relativity is easy to understand, and that's the one people hear about in high school and basic General Physics class in college. The GENERAL Theory of Relativity is harder to understand and requires further study. Einstein came up with both of them.
The thing is... Does space actually move ... or is everything fixed but new space filles up around existing space? Then nothing moves but the amount of space gets denser. And we know in Theory of Relativity that solid objects aren't solid anymore but can be contracted... In a matter of fact: we are shrinking... #mindblown
@@ursxxx you seen dark matter? Becuase no one else has... a vacuum is negative pressure and can move things around just the same as pressure. Get out of here with that bark matter jargon. It was a theory that no one has evidence of besides things are moving. There are endless explanations why somthing could be moving in a friction-less space. Dark matter and dark energy is a cop out and not a fresh thought has gone into it in 4 decades.
Some people have been sending wikipedia references saying parts of this video are wrong, but I think it's wikipedia with the misconceptions. For further reference check out this paper: journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8838887
Always inspiring, since everything is expanding, some slow ideas never reach the tongue and keep trapped inside. I think I just reach the end of my infinite imagination... for TODAY :P Thanks for that ;)
Thanks for posting this, but maybe you should cite these sources in the description of each video, hopefully people would check them out before start arguing. Also, you say this in the description: "space itself is expanding such that far away objects are receding rapidly from each other" Far away objects are receding rapidly from US, not each other.
Veritasium You said the Universe kinda looks like it is infinite. Why do you say this? I'm very curious. I downloaded the article you linked to, I'll give it a read.
"You never run out of infinity" HILBERT HOTEL *COUGH* *COUGH* Edit: it's a joke, you don't need to explain math to me, I know there are different kinds of infinity, I'm tired of getting non-joyful replies
I had this thought too but I think it comes down to the semantics of "run out" because even though you can't map a larger infinity into a smaller one, the smaller infinity hasn't ran out of numbers.
Expansion is relative to one big bang, but infinite is not even related to that. infinite is infinite before or after that bang and goes beyond any big bang, the concept of infinity is hard to assimilate.
@Javier Rafael Mitogo Nguema Nguema I think it's because of how we visualize it. Don't visualize the edge of the universe as a hard border / line. Before I always did this because I imagined the universe as a circle which is always growing. Instead, as in the video you can imagine the universe as recursive. Imagine this: you are in spaceship and you look out the window at one piece of universe and you see it, it's big and black. You go to it with your spaceship. When you get there, the area you are at is now big and "zoomed" in compared to how you observed it from far away before you flew your spaceship there. But now when you look out your spaceship window you see the same thing again, more black space that is far away, so you fly into again, once there everything comes into focus and once again you see the same pattern of more space you can fly into. It's this endless loop or recursiveness that makes the universe infinite. Or as the video said "the universe expands into itself" with a visualization of how once you zoom into square you see more small squares forever and ever.. Hope this makes sense lol. It's hard to put into words.
Doug G Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? *Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain? *Jer.10:* 12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. *Isa.42:* 5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: *Job.26:* .6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. 7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. *Heb.11:* 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. *Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the Lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right. *Isa.43:* 22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help. You have grown tired of me, O Israel! 23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings. You have not honored me with sacrifices, though I have not burdened and wearied you with requests for grain offerings and frankincense. 24You have not brought me fragrant calamus or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices. Instead, you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your faults. 25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again. 26Let us review the situation together, and you can present your case to prove your innocence. 27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me; all your leaders broke my laws. 28That is why I have disgraced your priests; I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob and shame for Israel.
Kalifor9 4:Everyone Thank you for this wonderful citation, God bless! And it is true, as humans are near to the nothingness of an infinite sea of knowledge. We will never have control over the solar system, the galaxy, not even our small marble.
@@kurtshaw229 theres also a theory that space time curves around large objects like planets, so when an object continues on a straight path, the path curves around that object, but im not so sure about that one, although it sounds plausible
@@kurtshaw229 although I do believe this theory does have some plausibility to it, and it cannot be completely denied as we dont know how it might work so its possible, but not very reasonable compared to what we already know to be a fact, or atleast extremely, extremely plausible
@@janluus9590 Nay, good fellow human, we'll hook Artifical Intelligence to Quantum computers and we'll see the whole thing. It's as if we were dogs, and lever handles were put on all the door knobs, facilitating our movement from here to there's never 'here'd' before. :) If we can keep AI, government and corporations from killing us over the next 10 or so years, we'll be good for an amazing future.
If you walked day and night for 7 years you could travel as far as light travels in one second, about 300,000km. In an hour light travels over a billion kilometres, and in a year nearly 10 trillion kilometres. The universe is 93 billion light years across, so multiply that 10 trillion kilometres per year by 93 billion years. "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
*That's because his explanation is horrible and harder to follow (if it's even right, I can't tell). Now if you look up a video by Fermilab on the Big Bang and about the 46B ly radius of the visible universe, that one is impeccable and can be easily followed). This one to me sounds like gibberish, though perhaps he is right but using a twisted explanation, instead of an easy explanation. Here's a tip, when scientists say that they can see a galaxy 46B ly from Earth, they can see it as it was in the past when the distance to Earth from said galaxy was still within the reach of a photon. So, the image of the galaxy they see is not the same image of the galaxy that is now at 46B ly away.*
@@ghostwarrior6831 nope, the video explained it in the most possibly convoluted way. Watch the Fermilab video and you will see how much better it is. This one is non-sense.
@@richardromero6193 *The explanation Fermilab gives is actually very simple! To understand the expansion of the Universe we have to pick a reference point, say, the Earth. For a sphere centered on Earth, due to the expansion of the universe, galaxies are constantly disappearing from our view because they are moving faster than the speed of light. A galaxy that is now 46B ly (say X) away from us is the farthest that we can see, but it's not because we can see 46B ly at all, since that's even greater than the age of the Universe. It simply means that 13.8B years ago (which is the age of the Universe), this galaxy X was 13.8B ly years from us, precisely the age of the Universe, allowing the photons to depart that galaxy at the very moment and still reach us. So we see the galaxy as it was 13.8B years ago, and due to the expansion of the Universe it is now at 46B ly of distance from us, we can never see it as it's now because it's current photons will never ever reach us (the galaxy moving faster than the speed of light and is also at a distance greater than the age of the universe). We would only be able to see it again if photons traveled faster than the expansion of the Universe and that expansion was static (not accelerating), in a simpler scenario.*
I have been studying cosmology and astrophysics since high school 45 years ago and understanding these concepts of the structure and observabilty of the universe have eluded me. The flow of your speech and the words you string together always greatly enhance understanding, but this time, it was immersing yourself in silly accurate graphics that rammed it home for me! 42!!
Sir Once could you briefly explain how light years work? Let us say that we are looking at something which is 2 light years away from us Does that mean we are looking at it how it was 2 years ago? As most RUclips videos say? So, if we were to look at something 50 billion light years away, are we looking at it how it was 50 billion years ago? But how is it possible if the universe itself is said to be 13 billion years old?
As your medical advisor, I would recommend the consumption of recreational materials and copious amounts of strong drink, after which all will become clear 🤪
As someone who has done mushrooms multiple times, I would strongly advise to try mushrooms and try to analyze such things. It's super strange how on mushrooms you are more much capable to comprehend things.
Jitesh Jangid Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? *Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain? *Jer.10:* 12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. *Isa.42:* 5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: *Job.26:* .6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. 7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. *Heb.11:* 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. *Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the Lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right. *Isa.43:* 22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help. You have grown tired of me, O Israel! 23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings. You have not honored me with sacrifices, though I have not burdened and wearied you with requests for grain offerings and frankincense. 24You have not brought me fragrant calamus or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices. Instead, you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your faults. 25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again. 26Let us review the situation together, and you can present your case to prove your innocence. 27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me; all your leaders broke my laws. 28That is why I have disgraced your priests; I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob and shame for Israel.
Lol that literally is the will of that beast we call knowledge, the more we know, the less we realize we actually know. Beautiful and bitter all at the same time
Even in the global pond - I am a journlist/writer - I rarely come across pieces/video in which the essence of a fairly complicated, philosophical-scientific topic is told both so clear and simple that it makes 100 percent sense. I watched other vids on this topic, but totally got it after watching your video once! Thanks. Do you have a video in which timespace is explained?
@@piccoloatburgerking read any introduction on special relativity, if two objects are moving away from you in opposite directions at 99% the speed of light that does not mean they are moving apart from each other at 198% the speed of light from their point of view, thats not how velocities are added in special relativity. no object can have a velocity higher then the speed of light relative to any observer
@@piccoloatburgerking if youd be flying at the 99.9999999% speed of light and chasing a photon, itd still have the speed of light relative to you. relativity isnt intuitive
ITSALLDERIVITIVE There is currently no adequate scientific description of the properties of the big bang before the beginning of the expansion. The old idea that it was a gravitational singularity within the theory of General Relativity is no longer widely accepted. (Stephen Hawking publicly changed his mind about that.) The point is that the galaxies of the universe are measurable distances from each other and those distances are increasing at a finite rate. This implies that there was a finite time in the past when the distances were all Zero. This clearly means that the universe had to be much denser and much hotter and much smaller, and the energy from this state is observed and measured as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The word "infinite" is clearly inadequate to describe this state in any aspect. Astronomers and astrophysicists today often simply use the term "hot dense state" to describe this initial state of the universe before it expanded to the universe we observe today.
***** Most of what you said is common knowledge to me, not to sound overly confident. Yet I still believe my query holds water. That is that the universe was supposedly infinititly dense, if I find out that it is a term used loosely I will correct my mind.but also be left with frustration because terms used loosely in this field are not good enough if we are to advance our knowledge of the universe.if we don't know we don't know and should say we don't know. In my mind a theory that gains momentum is still a theory. Again not to sound overly abitious but I prefer my own theorys.
ITSALLDERIVITIVE Sorry that I told you things that you already know. And as far as I'm concerned, you can have any "theory" you want and consider it superior to accepted science if you want to. I responded to your question in terms of what I believe to be accepted science. I'll repeat what I said. The concept of the big bang as a gravitational singularity of infinite density is no longer widely accepted by science, and descriptions of a physical state as being "infinite" is at best problematic. That's my answer to your answer based on my understanding of currently accepted science. You can take it or leave it.
***** It's as if you copied and pasted (your original post,it was textbook) any who. .if the universe is infinite and it's likely that it is. (Space itself atleast) then the universe must have been infinititly dense.
2:22 this is extremely contradictory. If the expansion of space is accelerating, then the Hubble sphere, defined by the boundary at which objects are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, should be shrinking! And vice versa, if the Hubble sphere is expanding, then the expansion of the universe is decelerating. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating then the expansion-rate becomes greater over time. If the expansion rate becomes greater over time, then the distance before something is receding away from us at more than the speed of light becomes shorter over time.
You're absolutely right! There is a very misleading conceptual error in the video at 2:22.....which reflects the fact that he was trying to gloss over a difficult point without reference to mathematics. While it's true that the Hubble Sphere is in fact getting bigger in PROPER distance (true physical distance which reflects the expansion of the universe,) the REASON for the increase in the Proper radius of the Hubble sphere over time is NOT as he says "the accelerating expansion of space." The Hubble sphere is in fact getting bigger over time (as you realized) due to a SLOWING effect caused by the DECREASE in the Hubble Constant over time. The Hubble Constant (sometimes called the Hubble Parameter) is the overall rate of expansion of the metric of space itself, and it IS still decreasing, as it always has been, even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies is now ACCELERATING. So the Hubble Sphere increases in size over time as the Hubble Constant decreases over time, AND the Hubble Constant IS still decreasing even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies is now ACCELERATING. (Check out the Wikipedia article "Hubble Volume.") The Proper radius of the Hubble Sphere is by definition the speed of light "c" divided by the Hubble Constant "H", and so over time, the Proper radius of the Hubble Sphere "c/H" increases inversely to decreasing "H." This video describes the situation in the early universe when the Hubble Sphere was expanding faster than the space around it, allowing it to overtake objects that were originally outside it and causing an INFLOW of galaxies into the Hubble Volume. BUT, in 1998, scientists (who won the Noble Prize in physics in 2011) discovered that about five billion years ago, Dark Energy acceleration became dominant in the expansion of the universe. This has caused a reduced rate of decrease in the the Hubble Constant.....and therefore a decreased rate of expansion of the Hubble Sphere. So NOW, the Hubble Sphere is no longer expanding faster than the space around it, and there is an OUTFLOW of galaxies from the Hubble Volume. Many galaxies we can see in the Observable Universe TODAY in light from the PAST, will not be seen in the Observable Universe of the far distant FUTURE in light being emitted TODAY. The mathematical way of saying this is that in the early universe the radius of the Hubble Sphere was increasing in PROPER coordinates AND in COMOVING coordinates; whereas in the accelerating universe of today, the radius of the Hubble Sphere is still INCREASING in PROPER coordinates, but is now DECREASING in COMOVING coordinates. (This is clearly illustrated graphically in relativistic spacetime diagrams, which can be plotted in Proper Distance, Comoving Distance, and in Conformal Time.) For more discussion and detail about the somewhat counter-intuitive concept of a decreasing Hubble Constant in an epoch of Dark Energy acceleration, check out the Wikipedia article titled "Scale Factor (Cosmology)", especially the first subsection titled "Detail". Also....a PhD physicist at CalTech, Dr. Sean Carroll, wrote a fine blog entry about the subject titled "Dark Energy FAQ." Google "Sean Carroll - Dark Energy FAQ". He talks about the decreasing Hubble Constant in the fourth FAQ.
@@Dannys-mb5xy This is what I wanted to hear. And this why exactly I started gleaning over the comment section as it was itching me, that this ain't right. Thanks for your wonderful intuitive explanation. Loved it. I love astronomy. Like you do. I am sure. I've started writing blogs on my medium page, fascinating stuffs happening in the cosmos. www.medium.com/venkatesh17nayak . Do check it out and let me know. Would love to have chats with you. Really look forward in talking to you. Hopefully you reply. Adios!
@@venkateshnayak5096 Thanks for the feedback. I'll check it out. I might mention that there are many more videos on the subject of cosmology on RUclips in the "PBS Space Time" and "Fermilab" channels. If interested, you can search "cosmology" and the channel names to bring them up. :-)
It amazes me how space is so... unbelievable. How is something so huge, why so many spheres with different sizes are floating... This is mind-blowing. Also, black holes. HOW?!
Sean Payton relax on the copy and paste from Wikipedia. We understand that you’re knowledge and intellect is far superior to anybody ever and that you are the peak of human evolution. All hail Sean Payton, the next messiah who will lead us with his incredibly high iq and annoying know it all comments. Just let the person marvel on how amazing the universe Is instead of trying to flex your knowledge that you found online.
This is an amazing and intuitive video on the topic but I think there just one problem here. As we are at the center of the hubble sphere, even if the sphere expands enough to capture the ray emmitted by the galaxy, as the ray's velocity is still away from us (from our perspective on earth and not the hubble sphere's perspective), it should always move away from earth and thus will never reach earth. So I thought about it a bit and then came up with my own explanation which explains it better according to me. Its that instead of seeing the galaxy moving away from us, lets just imagine the fabric of space expanding. This causes the relative distance between the earth and galaxy to increase but also causes the light ray to expand by the same magnitude. Thus as the light ray moves towards us, even if the space expands, the ray exands with it. This if we see this from the ray's perspective, there is no expansion and the ray can just cover the distance without any problem. I know that its a bit hard to imagine but just think that as the space is expanding, your view also increases at the same rate. In this perspective, for you the picture will remain the same without the distance getting bigger. Here the light will just travel that same distance (from this perspective) and thus reach earth with the speed of light.
My tiny human brain cannot comprehend things like how the universe can be infinite, how a "big bang" could have occurred everywhere at once, what existed before the big bang, or how nothing could have existed. Basically, I can't wrap my head around infinite space, time, and nothingness. (which also brings to mind what happens after we die. If everything just ceases to be, what is that like? I guess it's not like anything because you can't actually experience it. I just can't imagine that. Ugh, what is life?! What is anything?!)
@@kablamo9409 I looked up who he is when the other person didn't reply. He's some gay guy on Instagram. You're right I'm not missing much. Lol I'm not big fan of social media just RUclips is all I really use. I have Facebook but I don't use it that much. I grew up in the age where you actually talk to people either in person or on the phone so I guess I'm a little old school for not liking social media.
This is wrong. The Hubble sphere will NOT expand away from us faster than the speed of light. Generally speaking the galaxies are not "moving" apart. It is the space between them that is expanding. Therefore the Hubble sphere would not "catch up" to the very same galaxies that are also "moving" away from us at the very same rate. (those galaxies are ALSO affected by the accelerated expansion...not just the Hubble sphere). In order for it (a previously invisible galaxy near the edge of the Hubble sphere) to become visible to us it would have to move towards us relative to the other galaxies around it. The Hubble sphere by definition is a sphere with us at its center. It's radius in any direction (surface of the sphere) moves away from us at exactly the speed of light. The "accelerating expansion" of the universe DOES NOT. accelerate that sphere. A trillion years from now it will STILL be expanding away from us at EXACTLY the speed of light. Any light bulbs going off in your head right now????
ikede ebhole Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? *Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain? *Jer.10:* 12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. *Isa.42:* 5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: *Job.26:* .6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. 7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. *Heb.11:* 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. *Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the Lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right. *Isa.43:* 22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help. You have grown tired of me, O Israel! 23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings. You have not honored me with sacrifices, though I have not burdened and wearied you with requests for grain offerings and frankincense. 24You have not brought me fragrant calamus or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices. Instead, you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your faults. 25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again. 26Let us review the situation together, and you can present your case to prove your innocence. 27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me; all your leaders broke my laws. 28That is why I have disgraced your priests; I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob and shame for Israel.
Doesn't anyone realize this sounds insane? Practically, everything in this video is pure nonsense, a fairytale at best. There is not a single proof, everything he talks about is based on some mathematical formulas (concepts), that don't have ANY relation to reality!! Remember, SPACE is NOTHING!! It does NOT exist! Nothing cannot expand nor shrink and only NOTHING (0, zero) can be infinite. Nothing in a real world can be infinite!! If you believe in this nonsense, then tell me how do you create, move, bend or shrink space (nothing)? Space is a concept, it does NOT exist in a material sense, the ONLY thing that exist is MATTER (an atom), nothing else! Space and energy are concepts, they don't exist!! Wake the fuc… up!
@@Iron_Byte Please tell me you didn't just say infinity doesn't exist in reality. Reality itself is infinite and you can experience it first hand. Pull yo head outta yo ass
I have a question that I'd love to see your thoughts on: why has there only been one big bang? Could conditions arise where we experience another big bang, and if we did - what would it mean to have a second universe expanding and eventually colliding with our expanding universe?
Nobody said there was only one big bang. We can see only one, we can not say anything about things outside the region we can see. Out there might be one or infinitely many more big bangs. We might never know!
@Osama Bin Laden maybe that universe is infinite and was always infinite , we don't know what exist beyond obsevable universe , we estimated based on that data we have that there is one big bang cuz everything that we see came from the same point , but what if beyond what we see there are inifnite bigbangs ? we don't know and we won't , thats the scary part , the univers is too big for us unfortunatly
(please excuse my bad English) so if the universe was infinite you would eventually run into a completely perfect "model" of yourself since this outcome is possible due to the infinite probability of finding yourself (infinite universe = 100% chance of it happening again and again since it has infinite chances). This also means that there is infinite yous out there reading this exact comment at this exact time seeing the exact same things as you and thinking the exact same things. yes no?
My head often stops working, when i just try to feel the vastness of the universe. ... It is interesting but also scary and disturbing at the same time ... It's a strong strange feeling ... It's like "it can't be true, I'm probably dreaming. "
Actually, if the "outside of the universe" may exist. Just if it exists, we can't prove if it exist or not in a scientificly way. He used a conditional: *If* the universe is infinite
The ending of this video actually answered some questions I had about the universe. Such as "if the universe is X lightyears big then what's outside of it?" and "if the universe is growing, what's it growing into?" The answers being that the universe is actually infinite and only what we can see is growing, and that the universe expands inward not outward. So thank you so much for that.
@@Roanak572 Sorry I was a bit unclear about that. By that comment I meant that the "in-between" parts of matter are growing. ie the inside is growing, rather than the outside.
@@Roanak572 think of it like the ever increasing resolution of televisions. Same size screens, but more pixels with more information and details being squeezed into the screen. The universe isn't growing or shrinking, our perception of it is zooming in, closer and closer. Kinda like finding more and more digits of pi, we keep zooming into the math.
If it was a wormhole that raptured then where are wormholes today. Would we not be able to see them, and the farthest observable point in space is 13.8 billion years. Before the time of light-matter in fact 1 billion years before the time of light-matter. Meaning our universe might be older than we observe. If your wormhole theory is true this fits with it because the wormhole would be infinite with the expansion of space. If you do believe in the big bang theory we know that it may not have been possible for this universe to form because before this there was literally NOTHING. So in this case a singularity would be impossible because GR would break down. There is so much we don't know and your theory may be closer to the answer.
@@devaviation6444 u said: 'because before this there was literally NOTHING' . There dint have to be something, to become something. Thats only how we reason from human perspective, and earth's laws.
I get what you're saying. I remember distinctly, when I was 10 years old, reading about proton-proton chain reactions and the triple-alpha process in stellar fusion. This was the first time I had a sense of scale so far beyond my existance that I felt depressed on my bike ride home from the library. I'm over all that now.
it depresses some people, gives some people massive anxiety, it excites some people and enlightens others. I think the way we look at the entire universe says a lot about ourselves tbh
I just found the answer to my previous question. The “ cosmological principle” explains the no matter where you are in the universe everything around you looks to be moving away. I don’t think I ever knew this. Learned something new today.
john noe Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? *Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain? *Jer.10:* 12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. *Isa.42:* 5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: *Job.26:* .6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. 7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. *Heb.11:* 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. *Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises. I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner. I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me if I could not be found. I, the Lord, speak only what is true and declare only what is right. *Isa.43:* 22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help. You have grown tired of me, O Israel! 23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings. You have not honored me with sacrifices, though I have not burdened and wearied you with requests for grain offerings and frankincense. 24You have not brought me fragrant calamus or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices. Instead, you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your faults. 25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake and will never think of them again. 26Let us review the situation together, and you can present your case to prove your innocence. 27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me; all your leaders broke my laws. 28That is why I have disgraced your priests; I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob and shame for Israel.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the Hubble Sphere. If objects in EVERY DIRECTION are moving away from us at the speed of light or faster, if we're not in the CENTER of that sphere, wouldn't we be moving in the same direction as some of the objects in a particular direction? Surely Earth is not the center of the universe, so wouldn't we be closer to one edge of the Hubble Sphere, moving in the same direction as objects in a similar vector relative to the center of the expansion? And wouldn't we therefore see objects NOT moving away from us at the speed of light or greater in that direction? Science is awesome.
Why is the Hubble sphere getting larger? If the expansion of space is accelerating shouldn't it be getting smaller. I mean the Hubble sphere isn't a physical line, so it shouldn't move with space. It marks at what point thing are moving at c away from us, if things are getting faster, things closer to us will be moving at c, so the Hubble sphere would get smaller.
Yes, you are correct that the Hubble Sphere is not a physical surface that expands with space. It's a mathematically calculated distance at which space is expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, it's a SLOWING of the relative rate of expansion of space (a decreasing Hubble Parameter) that causes the Hubble Sphere to increase in size over time. This video is in error to relate the increasing size of the Hubble Sphere to an acceleration in the rate of expansion of space. Mathematically, the radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light "c" divided by the Hubble Parameter "H" . Therefore, a decreasing Hubble Parameter over time causes the radius of the Hubble Sphere to increase inversely by the factor "c/H". Since the Hubble Parameter has been decreasing in magnitude ever since the big bang, the radius of the Hubble Sphere has been increasing in size over all of the age of the universe (elapsed time since the big bang.) The video reference to "acceleration" involves the recent discovery that the ABSOLUTE rate of expansion of the universe (the recession velocity of individual galaxies, given by the time derivative of the cosmological scale factor) is increasing over time, even as the RELATIVE rate of expansion (the Hubble Parameter, given by the time derivative of the scale factor divided by the scale factor) continues to decrease as it always has. Check out the Wikipedia article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)".
our space within the hubble sphere is also expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light and accelerating at that so it can catch up to light that has kinda been left behind think a tennis ball thrown out of a car doing 60 mph except the car isn't moving the ground is and the ground under you is also moving g eventually your ground might finally encompass the area where the ball is located
Because the only reason we can't see beyond the hubble sphere is because everything beyond it is moving too fast so if that horizon expands so does our view
I wouldn't be getting smaller as much as it would have smaller progressions. If the universe itself is accelerating faster than the speed of light, and the hubble sphere is accelerating at the speed of light, it would be getting smaller in relation to the universe, but it would be expanding. An idea this guy seems to hind around, but not mention is that light is history, not current. If on the edge of the observable universe there is a galaxy, than it took the like from that galaxy to get 13.789 billion years to get to us, then that galaxy is no longer where we think it is. The same can be said for us. We could have been traveling in the opposite direction as that galaxy. So, no both galaxies could be 50 billion light years away from us. He did mention that the universe could be (or more implied that that it is) infinite. I don't quite understand how this could be possible. Infinity itself is quite a strange idea that has shown know possibility of existing in the universe. But, if the universe is someone infinite, you would already know all the stuff I just said, because we have had this conversion and infinite amount of times already, and we will have it an infinite amount more times.
@@car6426 Funnily enough, I actually had a shower thought about this Ok so if the universe is infinite, There's always a possibility for everything right? So, there should be a version of let's say you, who has teleportation powers cuz why not, would teleport to you, exactly at this time. but since there isn't, it most likely isn't infinite ***Just a shower thought I had, not actual science or something***
@@tausiftaha12 if that were true then there would be an infinite number of @cars teleporting to the one on our earth and they would all become a very gross infinitely squishy mess There's a difference between the infinite universe and the infinite multiverse. Our universe could be infinite without repeating (we've seen veritasium make a pattern out of tiles that never repeats) while the multiverse is more a theory about how we might live parallel to versions of ourselves where the timelines play out differently. Because of this, I'm gonna say that a version of @car not teleporting to that @car isn't proof that the universe is finite. I will thank you though because you've helped me understand a few things
The behavior of the subject being observed (the universe) is actually improving the functionality of the instrument (Hubble). I don’t think there’s any other circumstance in which that happens. Pretty incredible.
+DragonGirl It could be explained a little better than it usually is if it were more clearly explained that measurements of the universe show that the galaxies are currently separated by the distances they are after moving apart with expanding space at the rate of the measured Hubble Parameter for the time that the universe has been expanding. It follows logically that there was a time in the past that the distances between the galaxies that we measure today were all "ZERO." That was the big bang. Since the universe of today so directly and completely corresponds to that time in the past when there was no spatial separation between the matter of the universe (in fact, the density and temperature was so high that matter as we know it did not exist), then that time in the past is identified as t=0 of cosmic time, and the cosmic time that has elapsed since then is.....by scientific convention........considered to be the age of the universe. As for calculating what that time actually is, the simplest approximation of it is to assume that the expansion rate has been constant over all of time (in fact it varies with the mass and energy in the universe). Then it follows logically that the time of the expansion is simply the inverse of the Hubble Parameter. So a grade school student who has mastered long division can approximately calculate the age of the universe by simply dividing the numerical value of the Hubble Parameter (expressed in consistent units) into the number "1". It gives you an approximation of the age of the universe that agrees with the accepted value of 13.8 billion years within about 3 percent.
+DragonGirl I always like to think that Everything is expanding...always, including the Earth...and me. Since everything is expanding relative to everything else...you can never notice it. I started out only 6' tall...but now I'm 6 million feet tall, relative to past me...but since everything expanded with me...I'm still perceived as 6' tall. Or maybe I expand and contract relative to other brains around me...who knows. Infinity can really push the boundaries of imagination....even if there is nothing past the boundary of our universe...then that nothing would surely have to be infinite as well...so some kind of infinity almost has to exist.
+ǺиØи¥мØÜร It depends on who you ask. If the Universe is infinite then there is no "center". If you have a blank graph that is infinite in all dimensions then where is the center of that graph? It's completely arbitrary.
+Sejal Yadav There can't be infinite matter, an infinite amount of matter would fill space entirely, we would be a singularity of infinite proportions.
Does this mean that my body is expanding at the speed of light, because I am in the universe? And we can't see the expansion because the measurements devices are also expanding, as is space to measure with? Ffs. My mind has been melted.
The expansion of the universe is a very small effect that is only observed by redshift across the vast distances BETWEEN galaxies. It has no effect at all WITHIN galaxies, at the scale of atoms (where nuclear forces dominate) and people (where electromagnetic forces dominate) and planets and stars in the Milky Way (where gravity dominates.) And expanding space is a metric expansion which increases with distance. The observed recession velocity of expanding space is the speed of light (relative to an observer on earth) at a distance of about 14 billion light years.
"Does this mean that my body is expanding at the speed of light" I suppose if your body was billions of light years in size then one end of your body may be expanding at the speed of light away from the other end of your body. Or in other words because your body is so small it would be impossible to measure any expansion of your body. It's like taking an elastic band and drawing two dots on it nearby each other, then stretching the band to double its length, the two dots you've drawn on it should still be nearby each other, even though the total stretch amount of the band is double.
Think about it this way: If the universe started as a small dot, but is finite, (just a theory) than this entire universe was stuck inside of a small area. IF it started to expand at the speed of light, and is increasing in speed, than that means that we are expanding too at that speed right? I believe if the universe is finite than it wouldn't slow down in the middle because that would mean the outer boarder of the universe (the part, in your theory, that is expanding at the speed of light) would be very stretched out and skewed. Maybe this leads to why the universe is infinite? My theory only works if it's finite.
cody yoder It's a metric expansion of space....an increase in the scale of space itself. The metric expansion is the same everywhere in the universe, and its expansion rate is the Hubble Parameter, which is 70 kilometers per second per Megaparsec. How fast space is expanding depends on the distance from the observer. At 1 Megaparsec (3,260,000 light years) it's 70 km/sec.....at 2 Megaparsecs it's 140 km/sec....at 3 Megaparsecs it's 210 km/sec.....etc. It reaches the speed of light of 300,000 km/sec at a distance of 4,285 Megaparsecs (14 billion light years) from the observer at the center. You are at the center of the observable universe, so the expansion of space for you is effectively ZERO!
My understanding was, nothing moves faster than light, but the universe expands faster than the speed of light because of how things are moving relative to each other. Like if a car's top speed is 100mph, and two cars drive in opposite directions, if an observer in either car were to clock the speed of the other car, it would appear to be driving 200mph.
Your understanding is incorrect. Light is an exception to that intuition; it appears to travel at the same speed to all observers. If you’re travelling at 1/4 the speed of light, light coming towards you still appears to travel at exactly the speed of light. Check out the Michelson-Morley experiment which then led to special relativity.
When I was in childhood, I once asked my teacher how the universe is assumed to be having a boundary and what is there on the other side of the boundary(I didn't know that the universe is expanding). He simply mocked me that I am so stupid to ask these questions.
He had never thought any farther than our solar system just like 90% of people today. Truly sad yet extremely arrogant how most believe Earth is all there is...
A nit to pick: it would have been, in my estimation, helpful had you pointed out that while _some_ objects beyond the Hubble Sphere will emit light that can in principle one day reach us, notwithstanding the fact that when emitted the photons left an object receding away from us greater than the speed of light, it is the case that eventually those same objects will reach a point beyond which their newly emitted photons will never reach us. That is, you did well with the Hubble Sphere and the particle horizon, but kind of dropped the ball in pointing out that eventually everything not in our local cluster will recede away and hit a point beyond which it will no longer be possible to exchange information, and thus we'll lose causal contact.
@ The Justicar: Good comment! Actually, he dropped the ball in almost every possible respect when he talked about the Hubble Sphere. The essential point he was making was how photons emitted beyond the Hubble Sphere could come within the Hubble Sphere due to its increase in size. But he said: "Due to the accelerating expansion of space, our Hubble Sphere is actually getting bigger." In fact, it's a SLOWING expansion rate of the universe that makes the radius of the Hubble Sphere get bigger......as happened in the early universe. Today's ACCELERATING expansion rate in fact causes the Hubble Sphere to get smaller.....exactly opposite to what he said......and which will cause the effect in the future that you describe. It's a simple derivation from the Hubble Law to show that the radius of the Hubble Sphere is given as the speed of light divided by the Hubble Parameter. So the size of the Hubble Sphere moves inversely to the magnitude of the Hubble Parameter, and thus to the expansion rate of the universe.
Dannys99887 i'm not sure where you're getting this from, but that's not quite correct. Both the universe and the Hubble surface are expanding. The barrier at the Hubble surface itself is expanding as a constant, but the expansion of the universe itself, for very distant regions, is increasing exponentially. Even if the universe were not expanding, the Hubble surface would still expand. The Hubble sphere isn't getting smaller. It's getting bigger every moment, but the rate at which it grows is nothing like capable of competing with the universe's expansion rate, and so, by comparison, it is proportionally smaller one moment to the next, but its total size continues to grow. I know that objects between the Hubble surface and the particle horizon can in principle emit light while they're in there and have that reach us, but I don't remember all of the details as to why that is. I know it's related to assumptions of the model and the fact that the Hubble surface is only an approximation, so there's wiggle room left between that boundary and the particle horizon. But I'm playing Star Trek online and I can't be assed to read a paper on it to refresh my memory right now.
The Justicar You wrote: "The barrier at the Hubble surface itself is expanding as a constant, but the expansion of the universe itself, for very distant regions, is increasing exponentially." You clearly do not understand the fundamentals of the Hubble Sphere, because this and most of your entire comment is simply wrong. The point is that the Hubble Sphere has EXPANDED dramatically in the past relative to the size of the universe, and is now on a path of dramatic CONTRACTION relative to the universe. This behavior of the Hubble Sphere has given rise to the past and future composition of the Observable Universe. I'll try to explain the science for anyone who is now confused. Contrary to what you said, what I wrote IS correct. I "GOT IT" (as you phrase it) from the fact that physics is my profession, and I have a solid grounding in astrophysics. In fact you don't have to be a physicist to figure out how to calculate the radius of the Hubble Sphere, and figure out how it changes over cosmological time. A fundamental understanding of the Hubble Sphere and the calculation of its radius are almost the first things you learn in this field. It's so well known, even among non-scientists, that you just about can't miss it these days if you do any reading on the subject at all. The radius of the Hubble Sphere (sometimes called the Hubble Length) is the distance from the observer where space will carry an object away from the observer with a recession speed at exactly the speed of light. So inside the Hubble Sphere, space expands at less than light speed, and outside the Hubble Sphere space expands faster than light speed. The Hubble Law is: V=HD.....where V is the recession velocity, H is the hubble Parameter, and D is the distance of the object from the observer. Since the Hubble Radius is the distance at which the recession velocity exactly equals the speed of light "c", the Hubble Law becomes....c=HR.....where the recession velocity is c and the distance is the radius of the Hubble Sphere R. Solving for R.......R=c/H. The radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light divided by the value of the Hubble Parameter. So the radius of the Hubble Sphere varies inversely with the value of the Hubble parameter. Since the Hubble Parameter varies DIRECTLY with the expansion rate of the universe (its units are velocity divided by distance), and the radius of the Hubble Sphere as calculated varies INVERSELY with the Hubble Parameter....then the radius of the Hubble Sphere varies INVERSELY with the expansion rate of the universe. So during a period of cosmological time in which the Hubble Parameter gets smaller (as happened in the fast moving but rapidly slowing early universe), the Hubble Sphere expands relative to the size of the universe and brings within itself photons which, when emitted, were outside of the Hubble Sphere. This is exactly what Derek Muller described here......except he assigned the wrong reason for the expanding Hubble Sphere. Conversely, in an epoch of cosmological time in which the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating (such as has recently been discovered by Nobel laureates Perlmutter, Schmidt, and Riess for our own cosmological time), then the effect over time will be an increase in the value of the Hubble Parameter (reflecting the increasing velocity of universal expansion), and a corresponding contraction of the Hubble Sphere (relative to the size of the universe.) It's hard to find an article on this subject which does not discuss the fact that the recently discovered accelerating universe will mean a contracting Hubble Sphere in which less and less of the universe will be seen by future astronomers, as objects slip behind the Hubble Sphere and will no longer be seen. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson writes eloquently of a far distant future in which the observable universe may encompass no more than the local group of galaxies......or maybe little more than the radius of the Milky Way. If you want to calculate the current radius of the Hubble Sphere for yourself, simply divide 300,000 kilometers per second (the speed of light) by 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec (the current value of the Hubble Parameter). You'll find that the radius is about 14 billion light years. This is about 30% of the radius of the current observable universe. So in terms of the distance from earth, about 70% of the current observable universe is moving with a transluminal recession velocity. This is a dramatic illustration of the rapidly expanding Hubble Sphere in the rapidly slowing early universe which brought the oldest photons within the observable universe of today.......including the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the Big Bang itself. If you want to better understand the Hubble Parameter on a theoretical basis, you need to have a grasp of comoving vs proper coordinates, the cosmological scale factor, and the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric. The Hubble Parameter is fundamentally the time derivative of the scale factor of the universe (a velocity term) divided by the scale factor itself. From a simple scale factor calculation, it's noteworthy that in a universe that's expanding at a constant rate....not speeding up or slowing down......the ratio of the radius of the Hubble Sphere to the size of the universe is a constant. You'll wish to check a reputable source for the validity of my expression for the radius of the Hubble Sphere. One place you can check is the Wikipedia article titled "Hubble Volume." Included in that article is this comment which summarizes what I've just derived and discussed in detail: "However, the Hubble parameter is not constant in various cosmological models so that the Hubble limit does not, in general, coincide with a cosmological event horizon. For example in a decelerating Friedmann universe the Hubble sphere expands faster than the Universe and its boundary overtakes light emitted by receding galaxies so that light emitted at earlier times by objects outside the Hubble sphere still may eventually arrive inside the sphere and be seen by us. Conversely, in an accelerating universe, the Hubble sphere expands more slowly than the Universe, and bodies move out of the Hubble sphere." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume
I am confused about how Space Expansion would necessarily increase the Hubble Sphere, rather than space simply expanding *through* the sphere, effectively shrinking it, which is what I was taught as a possibility. Can anyone help with that?
2:22 Quote: 'due to the accelerating expansion, our Hubble Sphere is actually getting bigger' This is just plain wrong, it's getting smaller. As the universe expands faster, the region in space which moves away from us at the speed of light is getting closer. From what we know, we've actually had a period in which the hubble sphere was growing, but that era ended roughly 5 billion years ago (in this era the universe's expansion was deaccelerating which made the hubble sphere grow) For further reading: wikipedia: 'Accelerating expansion of the universe'
This is an unfortunate and misleading error in the video. The video is certainly WRONG in saying WHY the Hubble Sphere is getting bigger. But nevertheless, the Hubble Sphere IS in fact still increasing in size in PROPER distance. (Which is normally the way it’s described.) the Hubble Sphere is only decreasing in size in COMOVING distance (which factors out the cosmological expansion.) Considering the Hubble Radius in PROPER coordinates: By definition, the PROPER radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light "c," divided by the Hubble Constant "H", (the metric rate of expansion of space.) And even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies IS in fact now accelerating, the Hubble Constant is STILL decreasing over time, as it has ever since the big bang. Therefore the Hubble Radius "c/H" INCREASES inversely with DECREASING "H". The Hubble Sphere and its radius “c/H” is discussed in the Wikipedia article "Hubble Volume." The somewhat counter-intuitive issue of a decreasing Hubble Constant in an era of dark energy acceleration is treated in many sources on Cosmology. Dr. Sean Carroll of Cal Tech has written about the issue in his blog article titled "Dark Energy FAQ." The issue is treated in mathematical detail in the Wikipedia article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)". Briefly, mathematically, the Hubble Constant is the first time derivative of the scale factor DIVIDED BY the scale factor. Although the time derivative is accelerating, the RATIO of the time derivative divided by the scale factor (which is the Hubble Constant by definition) is not accelerating......in fact it's still decreasing. This is discussed in the "Detail" section of the Wiki article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)". SO in short, the Hubble Sphere in Proper Coordinates is not expanding because of the accelerating universe, it is expanding because of the STILL decreasing Hubble Constant. Considering the Hubble Radius in COMOVING Coordinates: The mathematics are simple. Since the Proper Radius is c/H, and since Comoving distance is proper distance divided by the Scale Factor, it follows that: Comoving Radius = c /a H where "a' is the scale factor. Since H = da/dt / a, then: Comoving Radius = c / a x da/dt /a The "a" in the denominator divides out, and: Comoving Radius = c / da/dt Since in an accelerating universe da/dt is increasing with time by definition, then it follows that the Comoving Radius is decreasing over time. Therefore, with dark energy acceleration, the galaxies are expanding outward, across the surface of the Hubble Sphere, never to be seen again in the Observable Universe of the future. In other words, the Hubble Sphere is still expanding in Proper Coordinates, but it's not expanding faster than the space around it, as it was before dark energy became dominant in the expansion five billion years ago.
I have the impression, if scientists do not understand how something works, they invent a 'Constant' to make things right. Never they will admit they have no clue.
@@Dannys-mb5xy for the people who didn't understand: the hubble sphere is increasing it's volume compared to the distances that do not move away faster than c, but decreasing it's volume comparing it to the ones that do.
The word "theory" as the general public uses the term means an unsubstantiated speculative guess. On the other hand, a "scientific theory" (as science......and the Wikipedia article by that title defines it) is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. A scientific theory (almost always mathematical in its structure) is the highest form of knowledge and understanding of the physical world. All branches of science are defined by scientific theories. This video describes the scientific theory of cosmology. It is solidly confirmed by physical data and is accepted by every reputable scientist in the world.
gummybearslayer bob Not sure what "it's a reference" is supposed to mean or how it's relevant. But maybe science just isn't your thing, and not knowing what a "theory" actually is presents no problem.......LOL.
Dannys99887 I know exactly what a scientific theory is. "It's a reference" means exactly what it's supposed to mean. The original commenter is referencing the Game Theory RUclips channel. Your comment was not relevant to what the OP meant
gummybearslayer bob Pretty stupid I guess to think that "just a theory, a universe theory" as a reply to a science video about the universe might actually be referring to science, the science of the universe. I'm usually better at knowing which ones to ignore. Such as the one below that called Einstein "the fool that he has always been." Only on RUclips......LOL.
+Mohamed Raafi Yusuff search quran. my local mullah says everything including all the mathematics and physics is already there in quran. not kidding, he claims it.
93 billion light years? One light-year is 6 million miles multiplied by a million. A million miles would take 54 days to travel at the speed of sound (767 miles per hour). So a light year would take roughly 890,000 years at the speed of sound.... But now we're talking about 93 billion of these.
I think the statement around 0:30 is misleading . When the universe formed, at around 10^-35th seconds the universe (the cosmological horizon) supposedly doubled 100 times by the time it was 10^-33 seconds old (according to Alan Guth). This was so fast that light couldn't travel from one side of the tiny universe (17 centimeters is one estimate) to the other. Today light can certainly travel 17 centimeters. The expansion rate of the universe during Inflation was vastly faster than today. Very distant objects are receding faster than the speed of light (space is expanding between them), but thats not the case between close objects. If you turn on a light switch the room gets light. That would not have happened at 10^-35th seconds. As long as the hubble parameter exceeds 0 there will be 2 points far enough from each other that they will recede faster than the speed of light. I just think its misleading to imply that everything is receding faster than light, and that todays recession speed is no different than when the universe formed.
Hm, my view on this would be that since the universe is somehow infinite, a universe that is by a gigantic inverse factor smaller (at the time of the big bang) than today, would still be infinatly large. A tiny number times infinite will always equal infinite, right? Humble amateur view btw
"that's not the case between close objects" Actually, the term is "gravitationally bound." Our entire galaxy is gravitationally bound, and so the space between the planets and stars in our galaxy is NOT increasing.
@@PatIreland I don't understand how this can be. Wouldn't the fabric of space be expanding equally everywhere? Gravity could still hold things together, but why wouldn't the space be increasing anyway?
There is something wrong with the explanation that we will be able to see light from a galaxy that is moving faster than light. If the observable universe starts going faster than the speed of light so will the galaxy beyond the observable horizon and so, in fact, you will never be able to see its light. The 'explanation' makes the mistake of unknowingly envisaging two separate parts of the universe and one telescoping into the other.This is obviously wrong.
On the scale of the universe, everything is incomprehensible. From the space between your eyes and your screen to the speed of the photons emitted from your screen to the scale of the transistors in your device, nothing around you is comprehensible.
Thank you for essentially introducing the idea that things never began and will never end -- an idea that we need to shake off from our premature or ego-based perspectives of the nature of existence.
The first thing, about entire galaxies moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, is something I often try to explain to people simply because of how awesome it is. If you've ever seen this type of comment from me, chances are you've seen all the replies trying to refute it. So thanks for that!
they are only moving apart from each other more than the speed of light relative to our perspective. But if you were "riding" one of the Galaxies in question, it could only appear to be moving away at less than the speed of light.
kerrywsmyth Everything in the universe must be looked at from some reference frame, yes.. No matter what reference frame you take, if galaxies are far enough away, they'll be separating faster than c. Obviously "riding" something doesn't allow you to experience the expansion of space. Our planet is rotating, revolving around the sun, our solar system is spinning in the spiral arms of the Milky Way, etc..
***** Would be interesting to see the expansion from outside the universe (if there is such a "place")... Also, how isn't gravity / quantum fields getting weaker as space expands? (or do they?) ...off to google!
kerrywsmyth But what about galaxies outside the huble sphere but inside the particle horizon? 3:35 Don't they look to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light?
itai alter Gravity totally gets weaker the further you go away from the source, but no force loses "Strenght" the more the universe expands. To make it simple, Forces only get weaker if you are far away from the charge that produces it.
Can’t games be programmed with any coding langauge? Yes math we have is human made, but math as a concept is intrinsic. Notation and font doesn’t matter
Nothing in space moves faster than light, but space moves faster than light... Wait. Doesn't that mean technically that light in that space is moving faster than light? My head hurts.
Imagine you have two fish in two sealed bowls of water, a meter in diameter. There is one fish in each. Each fish can only make 5miles per hour. Now you grab one bowl and run away from the other bowl at 20mph (you are pretty strong). Even if the fish would swim towards each other, the fish increase their distance all the way, since their spaces move faster apart. And then they crash into the bowl wall and my analogy is over.
But the 'area' into which space expands is not yet part of space itself, so technically it could still be true, I think. If we consider the 'area' outside of expanding space to be nothing or perhaps 'potential space', we could still say that space travels faster than light into 'potential space', right? I'm really not sure, please someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'd love to learn more about this.
Christopher Mast - Legion of Weirdos consider the galaxy thats moving away from us faster than light. now consider this situation as an example, if the galaxy is moving 1000 m/s faster than the speed of light, the light emiting from galaxy is moving towards us at speed of light, hence the relative speed of the light is 1000m/s away from us, which is not much. the space would only need to expand at about a little more than a thousand meter/sec. thats wayy less than speed of light, hence the space is not moving faster than light.
Listen me. You can have an object that is faster then speen of light, it is not physically impossible. The speed of light is not a limit for the speed of the objects (fishes in the bowls, atoms or photons), but is a limit for the transfer of information. So you can have two objects that are running from each other at the speed of light or faster, but they can't communicates with each other, and for each of them the other doesn't exist because it can't receive any physical influence from the other.
After watching this episode multiple times, I'm still confused about the universe age and the greatness of the observable universe. I mean this episode couldn't add anything to my knowledge thus far.
Yes, you are a typical religious person. Waiting for science to do all the hard works and when it gets obvious you guys tie it to your religious believes. All those numbers and divisions never existed in any religious scriptures until you guys learnt how to read and write. REMEMBER: there is no creator. God/creator didn’t make man, man made gods/ creator. And to save and secure their gods, man invented religion to eventually financially get benefit from it and of course that god assume them power and authority to rule over stupid, uneducated people.
For those here who REALLY want to try and understand this, watch some videos on dimensions. Yes, those videos will also make your head hurt. But, watch them, then watch this again. It won't make 100% perfect sense to us. But it will give you a better understanding of what he is saying. If you watch a video like this without some kind of background, it will either make you make you turn away from things like this. Or it will make you thirsty for more. But trying to understand this, is like telling a person the answer to something, without telling you *how* they got the answer. Anyone remember is high-school our Math teachers telling the students to, *SHOW THEIR WORK?* Well this is the perfect example. He is essentially showing you "an answer" to something. But we don't know the work behind how he arrived at his conclusions. He does give little bits here and there. But if you really want to know this stuff....then simply ask yourself after you finish this video, "How did he come to those conclusions?" Do this after every video, and you'll find yourself going deeper and learning in the process.
The universe isn't infinite because eventually the matter will stop spreading apart, and will crunch back together after a stand still. Saying that the universe is infinite is like saying the a growing boy is infinite because he is growing... eventually he will stop growing and fade away again.
The Big Crunch is just one possible end to the universe. It will only occur if space is positively curved (which hasn't been observed) and the curvature is too great for dark energy to compensate. Even if it does happen, it's just the reverse of the big bang - it doesn't care what size the universe is. It works perfectly well in an infinite one. The video doesn't say that the universe will be infinite because it will continue to grow for all eternity; it's saying that it probably started out that way.
It hasn't been proven that the universe is finite though. A finite universe has repeatedly failed to manifest itself, while the technicalities behind an infinite universe are getting more and more plausible. As such, while unproven, a infinite universe is the leading candidate in the scientific community. This guy isn't a quack, this is mainstream science.
Zazz30 How can it be infinite if it's still growing? Infinite means forever, not forever growing. There's an outer rim to the universe, expanding, and at that rim, there is the end.
So if we measure 3D space by "volume", then while the universe "expands", we notice that particles don't increase in volume or mass. Nothing is being "stretched thin" like you would expect. Take a sealed sphere. It has a set volume, and a finite amount of mass that exists within it. If you stretch or expand that sphere, you're not creating more mass, but rather stretching the distance between all atoms so that your mass fills your volume. Apply that to the universe. We don't see our world getting stretched out, yet we say the universe is expanding. Those two things would contradict each other. But that also means that the universe would have a finite volume, even if we can't see it or detect it yet. And to take that one step further, we say nothing can be created or destroyed, only change from one form to another. Meaning you can't create matter from nothing, or have matter permanently disappear from existence. That means the universe has a finite amount of mass. That also means that if it's expanding, because it's finite, in order to take up more volume (while maintaining mass), it would have to expand INTO something else, thus, gaining volume. Now if we say that the universe isn't expanding "into" anything, it's just expanding, then we've clearly come to the conclusion that there is a separation between "nothing" and "the universe". If the universe was literally ALL there is, then it would have no need to expand, as it would already occupy all of existence, making expansion meaningless. If that's the case, that means that what we observe as expansion, could actually be everything being COMPRESSED, giving the illusion of an "expanding" universe. We are still a "relatively" young species. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years for us to finally be technologically advanced enough to find the answers we are looking for. We've come a long way since not even knowing what fire was. But we have a long way still to go.
No; other universes wouldn't be in our space, they would have their own space (or possibly some concept that is unlike what we identify as "space"). I guess you could think of it sorta like how the "space" inside one game doesn't exist inside another game, for example. But depending on the nature of the multiverse; a better analogy would be how you can have things in the same room but different floors in a building without them being visible to each other. And there are probably other different analogies for some different interpretations of what is a multiverse.
No, think it this way: the group of odd numbers is infinite, however, odd numbers belong to a larger group: Real numbers, which is infinite too. Remember some infinites are larger than other infinites.
If you imagine two infinite paper sheets, having infinite 2 dimensional coordinates, they could lay on top of each other, expanding in the 3rd dimension. Likewise the universe could expand in a even greater dimension without ever intercepting with another universe.
chocoboyc Wrong. "Theory" doesn't mean that there is no evidence. A theory is something, that has proven postulates and has been tested. What you mean is a hypothesis.
You explained this very well. Of course, it makes sense: we see that light because our part of the observable universe is expanding with it. We simply don't see its exact location because that location has been and still is always moving.
Thanks a lot... I just wanted to watch some understandable science, before going to bed. And now I'm gonna think about the expansion of the universe from everywhere to everywhere and how we can observe it as an expansion, though it might not only expand away from us, but also towards us.... -.- ;)
Doesn't anyone realize this sounds insane? Practically, everything in this video (and most comments) is pure nonsense, a fairytale at best. There is not a single proof, everything he talks about is based on some mathematical formulas (concepts), that don't have ANY relation to reality!! Remember, SPACE is NOTHING!! It does NOT exist! Nothing cannot expand nor shrink and only NOTHING (0, zero) can be infinite. Nothing in a real world can be infinite!! If you believe in this nonsense, then tell me how do you create, move, bend or shrink space (nothing)? Space is a concept, it does NOT exist in a material sense, the ONLY thing that exist is MATTER (an atom), nothing else! Space and energy are concepts, they don't exist!! Wake the fuc… up!
@@Iron_Byte Space is not nothing. It may seem like nothing but there are an uncountable amount of Photons which travel through space every second. How can you call Space nothing. On a quantum level there are a multitude of particles at work. Some that we can't detect due to how enert they are. We as humans see on a 4d plane. However Space could be on 5 or 6 dimensional plane which we cannot see. And we can bend space. Not ourselves but Black Holes do. Its gravitational pull is so dense that it causes a depression in space on a plane that isnt observable by humans. Humans are like gluons in a Universe. We dont even know if size matters in terms of objects in the Universe. We have no scale to go by. So for all you know our universe could be the size of an atom. Therefore Space is infinite. You have no way of determining our scale to the Unobservable Space . So you cannot say that Space is not infinite. Without Energy you would'nt move. I don't know what substances you were on to think like this.... Can you reccomend me some of them?
@@KS-vo3hf Hey genius - show me a drawing of a space. Otherwise shut up. BTW - read my comment again - I said, the only thing that IS infinite is space - nothing else!! The only reason space is infinite is because space is nothing!
@@Iron_Byte the rigorous concepts in any field sound like nonsense if you don't have a background in it. Some examples: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_basis_of_synesthesia (neuroscience) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality (sociology)
Don't know if you'll ever read this, but is an honest feedback from someone who like what you do. Most of your latest videos are been presented with a negative connotation, stating that some of the information we have or the believe and understanding is wrong, just look at your titles: - misconceptions about electricity - we're building computers wrong - most people don't know how bikes work - misconceptions about the expansion of the univers - etc I understand the title that could be clickbait, but also your videos are structured in a way of saying what you think is wrong and then showing why you think that, when the "truth" is always a bit in the middle, you are quite smart so you know how to construct your statements in a clever way, but I think it would be great to use a positive structure instead of a negative one. Show and say what you want to show and say, but without having to always do it as to debunk a "misconception" that was never a misconception. For example in this case of the expansion and big bang that happened in an infinitesimal "place", that's right and wrong depending how you see it, if there was no space before you can't say that it was in a "place"and it could have and always been infinte.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Starting a petition to call the "Hubble sphere" the "Hubble Bubble"
Beautiful...
Yes
I second that
Now that's a bubble trouble.
This is great, let us do that!
Einstein: Nothing can move faster than light
Nothing: Yes, yes I can
Master, I pledge myself to your teachings
Nothing alone is not a moving thing.
( I think lol )
@@chips.3927 it was a joke
@@emperorpalpatine3125 I know just to say, i though you were being serious.
@@emperorpalpatine3125 You're still on recovery after you fall down. It doesn't makes senses that's why.
This video was uploaded in 2014 and I am just receiving it today because of the expanding universe!
Fax!
ursula
Good one :)
And utub
Haha
I've always found some of the most interesting things to contemplate are...
1. How could space possibly end?
2. If it ended, how and where did it end?
It just vanish in a state of nothingness. Don't forget that only a human being can feel the Univers through his 5 sense. The immensity of space is black, but black represent a colour that we can see. Nothingness is much deeper than that, it is a place where there's no matter and no energy, that mean we can't see it. Thats why we will never be able to see or comprehend the "end" of space.
@@Denso59 so space is finite
@@HassanAhmed-rf9xr Empty space is in theory infinite as it expand through the extension of Matter + Energy
@@Denso59 do we count what outside. If we do cant we say its finite?
@@HassanAhmed-rf9xr If we count everything that is inside then yes we can call our univers finite
Einstein: NOTHING can travel faster than light.
Space: I am NOTHING.......
Einstein's SPECIAL Relativity: No physical object can move THROUGH space faster than light.
Einstein's GENERAL Relativity: SPACE bends and curves and is the source of the force of gravity. Physical objects can and do move WITH expanding space faster than light.
The SPECIAL Theory of Relativity is easy to understand, and that's the one people hear about in high school and basic General Physics class in college. The GENERAL Theory of Relativity is harder to understand and requires further study. Einstein came up with both of them.
Actual science: Space is not nothing. There is dark energy and dark mattery, and it is not traveling but pushing. Ehh theories...
unemployed ! Screeches in space
The thing is... Does space actually move ... or is everything fixed but new space filles up around existing space? Then nothing moves but the amount of space gets denser. And we know in Theory of Relativity that solid objects aren't solid anymore but can be contracted... In a matter of fact: we are shrinking... #mindblown
@@ursxxx you seen dark matter? Becuase no one else has... a vacuum is negative pressure and can move things around just the same as pressure. Get out of here with that bark matter jargon. It was a theory that no one has evidence of besides things are moving. There are endless explanations why somthing could be moving in a friction-less space. Dark matter and dark energy is a cop out and not a fresh thought has gone into it in 4 decades.
Some people have been sending wikipedia references saying parts of this video are wrong, but I think it's wikipedia with the misconceptions. For further reference check out this paper: journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8838887
Best video I've seen in a while!
What a interesting video!!! :)
Always inspiring, since everything is expanding, some slow ideas never reach the tongue and keep trapped inside. I think I just reach the end of my infinite imagination... for TODAY :P
Thanks for that ;)
Thanks for posting this, but maybe you should cite these sources in the description of each video, hopefully people would check them out before start arguing.
Also, you say this in the description: "space itself is expanding such that far away objects are receding rapidly from each other"
Far away objects are receding rapidly from US, not each other.
Veritasium You said the Universe kinda looks like it is infinite. Why do you say this? I'm very curious. I downloaded the article you linked to, I'll give it a read.
The more you know makes you realize how much you don't know.
Heavy
@@edholohan going places
VSauce Michael here?🤔
Scio me nihil scire
Dunning-Kruger effect
"You never run out of infinity"
HILBERT HOTEL *COUGH* *COUGH*
Edit: it's a joke, you don't need to explain math to me, I know there are different kinds of infinity, I'm tired of getting non-joyful replies
I had this thought too but I think it comes down to the semantics of "run out" because even though you can't map a larger infinity into a smaller one, the smaller infinity hasn't ran out of numbers.
Please go outside
The difference between countable infinity and uncountable infinity.
cough cough dumb hypothetical cough cough
@@WukingWarrior cantor diagonalization if i'm not wrong
the ending literally shook me lmao. i've never thought of the expanding universe in that way
Yep. I always thought about what is outside of the universe and can't comprehend it. This just changes my whole thought process.
Its just a theory don't take it for granted
Expansion is relative to one big bang, but infinite is not even related to that. infinite is infinite before or after that bang and goes beyond any big bang, the concept of infinity is hard to assimilate.
@Javier Rafael Mitogo Nguema Nguema I think it's because of how we visualize it. Don't visualize the edge of the universe as a hard border / line. Before I always did this because I imagined the universe as a circle which is always growing. Instead, as in the video you can imagine the universe as recursive. Imagine this: you are in spaceship and you look out the window at one piece of universe and you see it, it's big and black. You go to it with your spaceship. When you get there, the area you are at is now big and "zoomed" in compared to how you observed it from far away before you flew your spaceship there. But now when you look out your spaceship window you see the same thing again, more black space that is far away, so you fly into again, once there everything comes into focus and once again you see the same pattern of more space you can fly into. It's this endless loop or recursiveness that makes the universe infinite. Or as the video said "the universe expands into itself" with a visualization of how once you zoom into square you see more small squares forever and ever.. Hope this makes sense lol. It's hard to put into words.
true
We’ve become so used to the universe and space, we sometimes forget how crazy this reality is we live in. It’s crazy
it is as if the impossible were possible by a fraction of fraction fraction of fractional fraction of fraction of second of relative time.
It is true insanity.
Doug G Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
*Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain?
*Jer.10:*
12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
*Isa.42:*
5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
*Job.26:*
.6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
*Heb.11:*
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
*Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right.
*Isa.43:*
22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help.
You have grown tired of me, O Israel!
23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings.
You have not honored me with sacrifices,
though I have not burdened and wearied you
with requests for grain offerings and frankincense.
24You have not brought me fragrant calamus
or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices.
Instead, you have burdened me with your sins
and wearied me with your faults.
25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake
and will never think of them again.
26Let us review the situation together,
and you can present your case to prove your innocence.
27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me;
all your leaders broke my laws.
28That is why I have disgraced your priests;
I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob
and shame for Israel.
Kalifor9 4:Everyone Thank you for this wonderful citation, God bless!
And it is true, as humans are near to the nothingness of an infinite sea of knowledge.
We will never have control over the solar system, the galaxy, not even our small marble.
It's Not the fact that we got used to it its the fact that our minds can't comprehend the vastnesse and complexity of the universe .
I will wait for my brain to expand enough to understand this.
Expanding space is dumb. There is just empty space with stuff in it. Space isnt an object
@@lagumlemoni331 Then how do you explain gravity?
@@kurtshaw229 theres also a theory that space time curves around large objects like planets, so when an object continues on a straight path, the path curves around that object, but im not so sure about that one, although it sounds plausible
@@kurtshaw229 although I do believe this theory does have some plausibility to it, and it cannot be completely denied as we dont know how it might work so its possible, but not very reasonable compared to what we already know to be a fact, or atleast extremely, extremely plausible
But you dont expand the electromagnetic forces keep you together.
I find this stuff fascinating but my brain struggles to cope.
Take things slowly and maintain consistency
Instead of coping you should improve it
Theoretical Sciences in a nutshell.
There was a brief moment where I felt a new, unusual kind of terror, watching this video.
The fact that you are puny, and was, is, and will never be able to see everything....
It scares me
@@janluus9590 Nay, good fellow human, we'll hook Artifical Intelligence to Quantum computers and we'll see the whole thing.
It's as if we were dogs, and lever handles were put on all the door knobs, facilitating our movement from here to there's never 'here'd' before. :)
If we can keep AI, government and corporations from killing us over the next 10 or so years, we'll be good for an amazing future.
If you walked day and night for 7 years you could travel as far as light travels in one second, about 300,000km. In an hour light travels over a billion kilometres, and in a year nearly 10 trillion kilometres. The universe is 93 billion light years across, so multiply that 10 trillion kilometres per year by 93 billion years. "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
@@gz3zbz I remember how my head got dizzy and getting crazy goosebumps when realizing for the first time how vast it actually is.
@@gz3zbz I can't wait for the new hyperspace bypass to be build so that I could travel faster!
These are by far the most addictive videos on RUclips for me. They're highly informative, easy to digest and your personality is totally Canadian.
Not that easy to digest for most people.but yeah, interesting.
Vsauce and kurzgesyagt (or however you spell it) are also good channels
But he's Australian :D
Canadian?....he just sounds like an American to me
@@matthewlewis2223 A lot of Canadians sound American. That's a common misconception (I'm one of those people). He said personality also, not speech.
This is the kind of video you leave more confused than you started
*That's because his explanation is horrible and harder to follow (if it's even right, I can't tell). Now if you look up a video by Fermilab on the Big Bang and about the 46B ly radius of the visible universe, that one is impeccable and can be easily followed). This one to me sounds like gibberish, though perhaps he is right but using a twisted explanation, instead of an easy explanation. Here's a tip, when scientists say that they can see a galaxy 46B ly from Earth, they can see it as it was in the past when the distance to Earth from said galaxy was still within the reach of a photon. So, the image of the galaxy they see is not the same image of the galaxy that is now at 46B ly away.*
@@ThomasJr u r a fool to not understand this
@@ghostwarrior6831 nope, the video explained it in the most possibly convoluted way. Watch the Fermilab video and you will see how much better it is. This one is non-sense.
@@richardromero6193 I agree
@@richardromero6193 *The explanation Fermilab gives is actually very simple! To understand the expansion of the Universe we have to pick a reference point, say, the Earth. For a sphere centered on Earth, due to the expansion of the universe, galaxies are constantly disappearing from our view because they are moving faster than the speed of light. A galaxy that is now 46B ly (say X) away from us is the farthest that we can see, but it's not because we can see 46B ly at all, since that's even greater than the age of the Universe. It simply means that 13.8B years ago (which is the age of the Universe), this galaxy X was 13.8B ly years from us, precisely the age of the Universe, allowing the photons to depart that galaxy at the very moment and still reach us. So we see the galaxy as it was 13.8B years ago, and due to the expansion of the Universe it is now at 46B ly of distance from us, we can never see it as it's now because it's current photons will never ever reach us (the galaxy moving faster than the speed of light and is also at a distance greater than the age of the universe). We would only be able to see it again if photons traveled faster than the expansion of the Universe and that expansion was static (not accelerating), in a simpler scenario.*
I have been studying cosmology and astrophysics since high school 45 years ago and understanding these concepts of the structure and observabilty of the universe have eluded me. The flow of your speech and the words you string together always greatly enhance understanding, but this time, it was immersing yourself in silly accurate graphics that rammed it home for me! 42!!
Sir
Once could you briefly explain how light years work?
Let us say that we are looking at something which is 2 light years away from us
Does that mean we are looking at it how it was 2 years ago? As most RUclips videos say?
So, if we were to look at something 50 billion light years away, are we looking at it how it was 50 billion years ago? But how is it possible if the universe itself is said to be 13 billion years old?
even universe expansions come for free.... learn something EA, learn!
@@kalifor94everyone2 What the hell is this?!
ARCEX
He is writing something from the bible i think. Pretty random tho.
@@messidinho8895 I know it's something to do with the Bible but why is it randomly posted over here lol?
@@kalifor94everyone2 random lol
😁😁😁😁😁
the money from my bankaccount moves away from me faster than the speed of light
😂. True that
I got 0.02 in my checking account as of now, after spend 1200 on a used $7K 2012 bike :D.
Actually, long range cables use fiber optics so your bank account is just moving at the speed of light. Sorry to disappoint.
Sentient2x r/wooosh
In that case I think ur money must be tyachon particles
Telescopes are basically time machines..
just like our eyes ffs
Not...
Maybe it makes the time to see planets faster
More like Time Scale
To our eyes , yes it is.👀
I have seen enough of your videos about physics that I recognize how loaded "as far as we can tell" really is.
Note to self: don't watch videos about the universe when you're having an existencial crisis.
Ortcelo ..or should you?
Always strive to bring a galactic perspective to the problems of earthly life.
As your medical advisor, I would recommend the consumption of recreational materials and copious amounts of strong drink, after which all will become clear 🤪
As someone who has done mushrooms multiple times, I would strongly advise to try mushrooms and try to analyze such things. It's super strange how on mushrooms you are more much capable to comprehend things.
Ta3iapxHs Having an existential crisis is the only sane state of mind.
Now I'm more confused than ever
Jitesh Jangid Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
*Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain?
*Jer.10:*
12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
*Isa.42:*
5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
*Job.26:*
.6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
*Heb.11:*
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
*Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right.
*Isa.43:*
22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help.
You have grown tired of me, O Israel!
23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings.
You have not honored me with sacrifices,
though I have not burdened and wearied you
with requests for grain offerings and frankincense.
24You have not brought me fragrant calamus
or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices.
Instead, you have burdened me with your sins
and wearied me with your faults.
25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake
and will never think of them again.
26Let us review the situation together,
and you can present your case to prove your innocence.
27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me;
all your leaders broke my laws.
28That is why I have disgraced your priests;
I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob
and shame for Israel.
@@kalifor94everyone2 lol
My brother said so too after our first night
Lol that literally is the will of that beast we call knowledge, the more we know, the less we realize we actually know. Beautiful and bitter all at the same time
sAmE
Im not getting fat, im expanding within myself
thats my explanation for being fat. cosmical expansion.
Even in the global pond - I am a journlist/writer - I rarely come across pieces/video in which the essence of a fairly complicated, philosophical-scientific topic is told both so clear and simple that it makes 100 percent sense. I watched other vids on this topic, but totally got it after watching your video once! Thanks. Do you have a video in which timespace is explained?
Check out minutephysics video on time-space, it's very well explained and makes perfect sense
Nerd
Try to rewatch it now and tell us if it still as clear as the first time 😂
idk if you already found it but the title (why gravity is not a force) video explained about the timespace
You mean spacetime
it's great that this kind of videos get millions of views
except for the fact its factually not correct
MLM Blob brain dead conspiracy theorist
@@msq7041 Prove him wrong then son.
@@piccoloatburgerking read any introduction on special relativity, if two objects are moving away from you in opposite directions at 99% the speed of light that does not mean they are moving apart from each other at 198% the speed of light from their point of view, thats not how velocities are added in special relativity. no object can have a velocity higher then the speed of light relative to any observer
@@piccoloatburgerking if youd be flying at the 99.9999999% speed of light and chasing a photon, itd still have the speed of light relative to you.
relativity isnt intuitive
I kind of get how the universe could be infinite.
But struggle to comprehend how something can be infinitely dense.
ITSALLDERIVITIVE There is currently no adequate scientific description of the properties of the big bang before the beginning of the expansion. The old idea that it was a gravitational singularity within the theory of General Relativity is no longer widely accepted. (Stephen Hawking publicly changed his mind about that.) The point is that the galaxies of the universe are measurable distances from each other and those distances are increasing at a finite rate. This implies that there was a finite time in the past when the distances were all Zero. This clearly means that the universe had to be much denser and much hotter and much smaller, and the energy from this state is observed and measured as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The word "infinite" is clearly inadequate to describe this state in any aspect. Astronomers and astrophysicists today often simply use the term "hot dense state" to describe this initial state of the universe before it expanded to the universe we observe today.
***** Most of what you said is common knowledge to me, not to sound overly confident. Yet I still believe my query holds water. That is that the universe was supposedly infinititly dense, if I find out that it is a term used loosely I will correct my mind.but also be left with frustration because terms used loosely in this field are not good enough if we are to advance our knowledge of the universe.if we don't know we don't know and should say we don't know. In my mind a theory that gains momentum is still a theory. Again not to sound overly abitious but I prefer my own theorys.
***** Was the singularity infinititly dense or not. That's my question
ITSALLDERIVITIVE Sorry that I told you things that you already know. And as far as I'm concerned, you can have any "theory" you want and consider it superior to accepted science if you want to. I responded to your question in terms of what I believe to be accepted science. I'll repeat what I said. The concept of the big bang as a gravitational singularity of infinite density is no longer widely accepted by science, and descriptions of a physical state as being "infinite" is at best problematic. That's my answer to your answer based on my understanding of currently accepted science. You can take it or leave it.
***** It's as if you copied and pasted (your original post,it was textbook) any who. .if the universe is infinite and it's likely that it is. (Space itself atleast) then the universe must have been infinititly dense.
2:22 this is extremely contradictory. If the expansion of space is accelerating, then the Hubble sphere, defined by the boundary at which objects are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, should be shrinking! And vice versa, if the Hubble sphere is expanding, then the expansion of the universe is decelerating. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating then the expansion-rate becomes greater over time. If the expansion rate becomes greater over time, then the distance before something is receding away from us at more than the speed of light becomes shorter over time.
You're absolutely right!
There is a very misleading conceptual error in the video at 2:22.....which reflects the fact that he was trying to gloss over a difficult point without reference to mathematics. While it's true that the Hubble Sphere is in fact getting bigger in PROPER distance (true physical distance which reflects the expansion of the universe,) the REASON for the increase in the Proper radius of the Hubble sphere over time is NOT as he says "the accelerating expansion of space." The Hubble sphere is in fact getting bigger over time (as you realized) due to a SLOWING effect caused by the DECREASE in the Hubble Constant over time. The Hubble Constant (sometimes called the Hubble Parameter) is the overall rate of expansion of the metric of space itself, and it IS still decreasing, as it always has been, even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies is now ACCELERATING. So the Hubble Sphere increases in size over time as the Hubble Constant decreases over time, AND the Hubble Constant IS still decreasing even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies is now ACCELERATING.
(Check out the Wikipedia article "Hubble Volume.") The Proper radius of the Hubble Sphere is by definition the speed of light "c" divided by the Hubble Constant "H", and so over time, the Proper radius of the Hubble Sphere "c/H" increases inversely to decreasing "H." This video describes the situation in the early universe when the Hubble Sphere was expanding faster than the space around it, allowing it to overtake objects that were originally outside it and causing an INFLOW of galaxies into the Hubble Volume.
BUT, in 1998, scientists (who won the Noble Prize in physics in 2011) discovered that about five billion years ago, Dark Energy acceleration became dominant in the expansion of the universe. This has caused a reduced rate of decrease in the the Hubble Constant.....and therefore a decreased rate of expansion of the Hubble Sphere. So NOW, the Hubble Sphere is no longer expanding faster than the space around it, and there is an OUTFLOW of galaxies from the Hubble Volume. Many galaxies we can see in the Observable Universe TODAY in light from the PAST, will not be seen in the Observable Universe of the far distant FUTURE in light being emitted TODAY.
The mathematical way of saying this is that in the early universe the radius of the Hubble Sphere was increasing in PROPER coordinates AND in COMOVING coordinates; whereas in the accelerating universe of today, the radius of the Hubble Sphere is still INCREASING in PROPER coordinates, but is now DECREASING in COMOVING coordinates. (This is clearly illustrated graphically in relativistic spacetime diagrams, which can be plotted in Proper Distance, Comoving Distance, and in Conformal Time.)
For more discussion and detail about the somewhat counter-intuitive concept of a decreasing Hubble Constant in an epoch of Dark Energy acceleration, check out the Wikipedia article titled "Scale Factor (Cosmology)", especially the first subsection titled "Detail". Also....a PhD physicist at CalTech, Dr. Sean Carroll, wrote a fine blog entry about the subject titled "Dark Energy FAQ." Google "Sean Carroll - Dark Energy FAQ". He talks about the decreasing Hubble Constant in the fourth FAQ.
Calm down you too Demonwisper and Danny. I put it simpler. I think. Lol
@@Dannys-mb5xy This is what I wanted to hear. And this why exactly I started gleaning over the comment section as it was itching me, that this ain't right. Thanks for your wonderful intuitive explanation. Loved it.
I love astronomy. Like you do. I am sure. I've started writing blogs on my medium page, fascinating stuffs happening in the cosmos. www.medium.com/venkatesh17nayak . Do check it out and let me know. Would love to have chats with you.
Really look forward in talking to you. Hopefully you reply.
Adios!
@@venkateshnayak5096 Thanks for the feedback. I'll check it out.
I might mention that there are many more videos on the subject of cosmology on RUclips in the "PBS Space Time" and "Fermilab" channels. If interested, you can search "cosmology" and the channel names to bring them up. :-)
@@Dannys-mb5xy You seem to make sense of it. This channel should do another video about this.
Watching it after 7 years in 2022 and I learned so much. Universe indeed could be infinite and expanding in to itself. What a concept, mind boggling.
Just discovered 3 days ago. Obsessed, halp 😐. It's almost not a joke
Stephen Hawking and the rest of the scientist get that obsessed card already. 🤢
the only big bang here is my mind being blown.
+cameron barnett the only big bang here is gang bang
+cameron barnett My brain hurts
Hahaha!! Mine too! ;)
if you want your brain to melt, watch videos on string theory and membranes
Relevant: xkcd.com/171/
It amazes me how space is so... unbelievable. How is something so huge, why so many spheres with different sizes are floating... This is mind-blowing. Also, black holes. HOW?!
@@JerryMetal that was so unbelievably incorrect I don't know where to start
@@commanderleo lol he deleted it from humiliation ....I wanna know too XD
@@onechippyboi calm down
Sean Payton relax on the copy and paste from Wikipedia. We understand that you’re knowledge and intellect is far superior to anybody ever and that you are the peak of human evolution. All hail Sean Payton, the next messiah who will lead us with his incredibly high iq and annoying know it all comments. Just let the person marvel on how amazing the universe Is instead of trying to flex your knowledge that you found online.
Sean Payton ah an australian, makes sense that you would be annoying. Also makes sense ur interested in astronomy, given you live upside down
I have been expanding a lot during this quarantine.
You never run out of infinity, that's pretty cool. This guy is a great presenter. :)
It takes light about eight minutes to reach earth from the sun. From our relativistic perspective on a universal scale, light is glacially slow.
Lol.. that's 8seconds not minute.
@@devendrapatel197 no, its 8 minutes
RUclips Addicted it’s 8 minutes bro
That means there should be speed faster than speed of light 😫😫
Adnan Raza there is. The universe can and does expand faster than light
What exactly do you mean by "It kind of looks like the universe is infinite"? Could you elaborate?
One of my favourite Veritasium videos. This guy has created a new generation of scientists. Glad i came up to this channel a few years ago.
This is an amazing and intuitive video on the topic but I think there just one problem here. As we are at the center of the hubble sphere, even if the sphere expands enough to capture the ray emmitted by the galaxy, as the ray's velocity is still away from us (from our perspective on earth and not the hubble sphere's perspective), it should always move away from earth and thus will never reach earth. So I thought about it a bit and then came up with my own explanation which explains it better according to me. Its that instead of seeing the galaxy moving away from us, lets just imagine the fabric of space expanding. This causes the relative distance between the earth and galaxy to increase but also causes the light ray to expand by the same magnitude. Thus as the light ray moves towards us, even if the space expands, the ray exands with it. This if we see this from the ray's perspective, there is no expansion and the ray can just cover the distance without any problem. I know that its a bit hard to imagine but just think that as the space is expanding, your view also increases at the same rate. In this perspective, for you the picture will remain the same without the distance getting bigger. Here the light will just travel that same distance (from this perspective) and thus reach earth with the speed of light.
My tiny human brain cannot comprehend things like how the universe can be infinite, how a "big bang" could have occurred everywhere at once, what existed before the big bang, or how nothing could have existed. Basically, I can't wrap my head around infinite space, time, and nothingness. (which also brings to mind what happens after we die. If everything just ceases to be, what is that like? I guess it's not like anything because you can't actually experience it. I just can't imagine that. Ugh, what is life?! What is anything?!)
It's ok man. Just lay off Mary Jane for a while
Rai Ji.......now that there was funny, i don't care who you are that there was funny.
It's not hard to imagine yourself not experiencing something. You aren't experiencing being in Paris right now, it's just like that.
I've always thought of the nothingness after death to be similar to the 13,8 billion years before I was born.
Went by pretty fast, weren't bored.
im pretty sure that is is not a pony
Can't wait until the James Webb telescope is up and running.
James Charles?
@@gillianross7225 no. The guy the telescope is named after is James Edwin Webb. Not sure who James Charles is.
Inspector Steve you arent missing out on much if you dont know who he is
@@kablamo9409 I looked up who he is when the other person didn't reply. He's some gay guy on Instagram. You're right I'm not missing much. Lol I'm not big fan of social media just RUclips is all I really use. I have Facebook but I don't use it that much. I grew up in the age where you actually talk to people either in person or on the phone so I guess I'm a little old school for not liking social media.
@@inspectorsteve2287 ok boomer
This video just turned 5 years, time goes by so fast
No it didnt
is it the time or us? you know getting older, slower..
Fernando Velásquez dang it went by like the speed of light ba dom tsssss
I’ll leave
I’m addicted to this channel. At least I’m learning
Very informative! Another great video, Derek!
Seeker I am really getting bored of your channel
thats mean
This is wrong. The Hubble sphere will NOT expand away from us faster than the speed of light. Generally speaking the galaxies are not "moving" apart. It is the space between them that is expanding.
Therefore the Hubble sphere would not "catch up" to the very same galaxies that are also "moving" away from us at the very same rate. (those galaxies are ALSO affected by the accelerated expansion...not just the Hubble sphere). In order for it (a previously invisible galaxy near the edge of the Hubble sphere) to become visible to us it would have to move towards us relative to the other galaxies around it.
The Hubble sphere by definition is a sphere with us at its center. It's radius in any direction (surface of the sphere) moves away from us at exactly the speed of light. The "accelerating expansion" of the universe DOES NOT. accelerate that sphere. A trillion years from now it will STILL be expanding away from us at EXACTLY the speed of light. Any light bulbs going off in your head right now????
I can't even start to comprehend these space stuff....it's just absofukinlutely blowing my mind
So funny XD
-_-
ikede ebhole Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
*Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain?
*Jer.10:*
12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
*Isa.42:*
5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
*Job.26:*
.6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
*Heb.11:*
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
*Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right.
*Isa.43:*
22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help.
You have grown tired of me, O Israel!
23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings.
You have not honored me with sacrifices,
though I have not burdened and wearied you
with requests for grain offerings and frankincense.
24You have not brought me fragrant calamus
or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices.
Instead, you have burdened me with your sins
and wearied me with your faults.
25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake
and will never think of them again.
26Let us review the situation together,
and you can present your case to prove your innocence.
27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me;
all your leaders broke my laws.
28That is why I have disgraced your priests;
I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob
and shame for Israel.
Doesn't anyone realize this sounds insane? Practically, everything in this video is pure nonsense, a fairytale at best.
There is not a single proof, everything he talks about is based on some mathematical formulas (concepts), that don't have ANY relation to reality!!
Remember, SPACE is NOTHING!! It does NOT exist!
Nothing cannot expand nor shrink and only NOTHING (0, zero) can be infinite.
Nothing in a real world can be infinite!!
If you believe in this nonsense, then tell me how do you create, move, bend or shrink space (nothing)?
Space is a concept, it does NOT exist in a material sense, the ONLY thing that exist is MATTER (an atom), nothing else!
Space and energy are concepts, they don't exist!!
Wake the fuc… up!
@@Iron_Byte Please tell me you didn't just say infinity doesn't exist in reality. Reality itself is infinite and you can experience it first hand. Pull yo head outta yo ass
“Faster than the speed of light” is my safe word.
I'm a sleeper and Its my trigger word.
That ackward moment when some light sensual roleplay turns into a interregation by a confused cold war era comunist spy
So what are your safe words then?
I have a question that I'd love to see your thoughts on: why has there only been one big bang? Could conditions arise where we experience another big bang, and if we did - what would it mean to have a second universe expanding and eventually colliding with our expanding universe?
Nobody said there was only one big bang. We can see only one, we can not say anything about things outside the region we can see. Out there might be one or infinitely many more big bangs. We might never know!
Want if there is a expanding universe in which infinite big bangs are happening
There is no way I'm thanking a person with that profile for clearing everything up. No way. But that does make a ton of sense
@Osama Bin Laden maybe that universe is infinite and was always infinite , we don't know what exist beyond obsevable universe , we estimated based on that data we have that there is one big bang cuz everything that we see came from the same point , but what if beyond what we see there are inifnite bigbangs ? we don't know and we won't , thats the scary part , the univers is too big for us unfortunatly
Maybe the universe is just constantly fluctuating with big bangs happening all over the place over billions of years
(please excuse my bad English) so if the universe was infinite you would eventually run into a completely perfect "model" of yourself since this outcome is possible due to the infinite probability of finding yourself (infinite universe = 100% chance of it happening again and again since it has infinite chances). This also means that there is infinite yous out there reading this exact comment at this exact time seeing the exact same things as you and thinking the exact same things. yes no?
I hope i made sense :P
Mind=Blown
i had a similar thought and propably my infinte mes too ^^
there is a finite amount of matter, only space is infinite
how would you know if it has a finite amount of matter? It is infinite after all.
2:06 “Receding fast than the speed of light,” sort of like my hairline
That's sad
How's your hair now
Can relate :’(
Lol 😂, gonna be a saitama 😂
@A7 lmaoooo
My head often stops working, when i just try to feel the vastness of the universe. ...
It is interesting but also scary and disturbing at the same time ...
It's a strong strange feeling ...
It's like "it can't be true, I'm probably dreaming. "
Just sleep man
you oughta read Lovecraft then
Bars
Actually, if the "outside of the universe" may exist. Just if it exists, we can't prove if it exist or not in a scientificly way. He used a conditional: *If* the universe is infinite
The Human mind cannot even begin to consider contemplating trying to imagine the vastness of the Universe.
The ending of this video actually answered some questions I had about the universe. Such as "if the universe is X lightyears big then what's outside of it?" and "if the universe is growing, what's it growing into?" The answers being that the universe is actually infinite and only what we can see is growing, and that the universe expands inward not outward. So thank you so much for that.
Buy wait a damn minute! If universe really is expanding inwards doesn't that means it actually shrinking lol
@@Roanak572 Sorry I was a bit unclear about that. By that comment I meant that the "in-between" parts of matter are growing. ie the inside is growing, rather than the outside.
@@Roanak572 think of it like the ever increasing resolution of televisions. Same size screens, but more pixels with more information and details being squeezed into the screen.
The universe isn't growing or shrinking, our perception of it is zooming in, closer and closer.
Kinda like finding more and more digits of pi, we keep zooming into the math.
I rate Big Bang was an unstable Worm Hole that raptured.
If it was a wormhole that raptured then where are wormholes today. Would we not be able to see them, and the farthest observable point in space is 13.8 billion years. Before the time of light-matter in fact 1 billion years before the time of light-matter. Meaning our universe might be older than we observe. If your wormhole theory is true this fits with it because the wormhole would be infinite with the expansion of space. If you do believe in the big bang theory we know that it may not have been possible for this universe to form because before this there was literally NOTHING. So in this case a singularity would be impossible because GR would break down. There is so much we don't know and your theory may be closer to the answer.
sorry for the dragged out explination
@@devaviation6444 How dare you :)
@@devaviation6444 u said: 'because before this there was literally NOTHING' . There dint have to be something, to become something. Thats only how we reason from human perspective, and earth's laws.
I actually think the Big Bang was the collapse of the last black hole in a previous universe.
Please can we call it the 'Hubble Bubble'?
That's exactly what i thought but I don't think it would sound 'as scientific' in the scientific community. hubble bubble...maybebebe
Ikr, but It wouldn't be scientific
Is that a chewing gum? 😃
Well, the Big Bang doesn't sound very scientific either.
Thats already a gum you chew lol.
Never talk about infinity. It's depressing.
Not as depressing as finitey though
I get what you're saying. I remember distinctly, when I was 10 years old, reading about proton-proton chain reactions and the triple-alpha process in stellar fusion. This was the first time I had a sense of scale so far beyond my existance that I felt depressed on my bike ride home from the library. I'm over all that now.
to infinity and beyond !
it depresses some people, gives some people massive anxiety, it excites some people and enlightens others.
I think the way we look at the entire universe says a lot about ourselves tbh
HollywoodF1
Oh get off your high horse xD
I just found the answer to my previous question. The “ cosmological principle” explains the no matter where you are in the universe everything around you looks to be moving away. I don’t think I ever knew this. Learned something new today.
I like the way this guy gets to the meat of a subject and then explains it in an easy to understand way.
john noe Laugh *Ps.8:* 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
*Ps.104:* 2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain?
*Jer.10:*
12He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
*Isa.42:*
5Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
*Job.26:*
.6Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
*Heb.11:*
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
*Isa.45:* 19 I publicly proclaim bold promises.
I do not whisper obscurities in some dark corner.
I would not have told the people of Israel to seek me
if I could not be found.
I, the Lord, speak only what is true
and declare only what is right.
*Isa.43:*
22“But, dear family of Jacob, you refuse to ask for my help.
You have grown tired of me, O Israel!
23You have not brought me sheep or goats for burnt offerings.
You have not honored me with sacrifices,
though I have not burdened and wearied you
with requests for grain offerings and frankincense.
24You have not brought me fragrant calamus
or pleased me with the fat from sacrifices.
Instead, you have burdened me with your sins
and wearied me with your faults.
25“I-yes, I alone-will blot out your sins for my own sake
and will never think of them again.
26Let us review the situation together,
and you can present your case to prove your innocence.
27From the very beginning, your first ancestor sinned against me;
all your leaders broke my laws.
28That is why I have disgraced your priests;
I have decreed complete destruction for Jacob
and shame for Israel.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the Hubble Sphere. If objects in EVERY DIRECTION are moving away from us at the speed of light or faster, if we're not in the CENTER of that sphere, wouldn't we be moving in the same direction as some of the objects in a particular direction?
Surely Earth is not the center of the universe, so wouldn't we be closer to one edge of the Hubble Sphere, moving in the same direction as objects in a similar vector relative to the center of the expansion? And wouldn't we therefore see objects NOT moving away from us at the speed of light or greater in that direction?
Science is awesome.
Why is the Hubble sphere getting larger? If the expansion of space is accelerating shouldn't it be getting smaller.
I mean the Hubble sphere isn't a physical line, so it shouldn't move with space. It marks at what point thing are moving at c away from us, if things are getting faster, things closer to us will be moving at c, so the Hubble sphere would get smaller.
Yes, you are correct that the Hubble Sphere is not a physical surface that expands with space. It's a mathematically calculated distance at which space is expanding at the speed of light. Therefore, it's a SLOWING of the relative rate of expansion of space (a decreasing Hubble Parameter) that causes the Hubble Sphere to increase in size over time. This video is in error to relate the increasing size of the Hubble Sphere to an acceleration in the rate of expansion of space.
Mathematically, the radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light "c" divided by the Hubble Parameter "H" . Therefore, a decreasing Hubble Parameter over time causes the radius of the Hubble Sphere to increase inversely by the factor "c/H". Since the Hubble Parameter has been decreasing in magnitude ever since the big bang, the radius of the Hubble Sphere has been increasing in size over all of the age of the universe (elapsed time since the big bang.)
The video reference to "acceleration" involves the recent discovery that the ABSOLUTE rate of expansion of the universe (the recession velocity of individual galaxies, given by the time derivative of the cosmological scale factor) is increasing over time, even as the RELATIVE rate of expansion (the Hubble Parameter, given by the time derivative of the scale factor divided by the scale factor) continues to decrease as it always has. Check out the Wikipedia article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)".
our space within the hubble sphere is also expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light and accelerating at that so it can catch up to light that has kinda been left behind
think a tennis ball thrown out of a car doing 60 mph except the car isn't moving the ground is and the ground under you is also moving g eventually your ground might finally encompass the area where the ball is located
Because the only reason we can't see beyond the hubble sphere is because everything beyond it is moving too fast so if that horizon expands so does our view
I wouldn't be getting smaller as much as it would have smaller progressions. If the universe itself is accelerating faster than the speed of light, and the hubble sphere is accelerating at the speed of light, it would be getting smaller in relation to the universe, but it would be expanding. An idea this guy seems to hind around, but not mention is that light is history, not current. If on the edge of the observable universe there is a galaxy, than it took the like from that galaxy to get 13.789 billion years to get to us, then that galaxy is no longer where we think it is. The same can be said for us. We could have been traveling in the opposite direction as that galaxy. So, no both galaxies could be 50 billion light years away from us. He did mention that the universe could be (or more implied that that it is) infinite. I don't quite understand how this could be possible. Infinity itself is quite a strange idea that has shown know possibility of existing in the universe. But, if the universe is someone infinite, you would already know all the stuff I just said, because we have had this conversion and infinite amount of times already, and we will have it an infinite amount more times.
hi
These questions I have been thinking since I was a kid. What is outside the universe?
What contains the universe?
Maybe nothing is outside the universe, maybe nothing contains the universe because the universe is all there is. But... we don't really know. :)
It's an HONOR to have our song "One Last Time" in this video!
That's the thing about infinity, you never run out of it.
I was just reading your comment when he said the line
It was actually like he translated my thoughts
Einstein: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Universe: Hold my dark energy.
Dark Energy: Hold my speed.
Dark energy: I am speed
I feel like there’s a point in learning about space where you just have to accept that it makes no sense and everything just is the infinite way it is
The universe is not infinite, if you think it is please present some evidence.
@@TransoceanicOutreach present yours
@@car6426
Funnily enough,
I actually had a shower thought about this
Ok so if the universe is infinite,
There's always a possibility for everything right?
So, there should be a version of let's say you, who has teleportation powers cuz why not, would teleport to you, exactly at this time.
but since there isn't, it most likely isn't infinite
***Just a shower thought I had, not actual science or something***
@@tausiftaha12 if that were true then there would be an infinite number of @cars teleporting to the one on our earth and they would all become a very gross infinitely squishy mess
There's a difference between the infinite universe and the infinite multiverse. Our universe could be infinite without repeating (we've seen veritasium make a pattern out of tiles that never repeats) while the multiverse is more a theory about how we might live parallel to versions of ourselves where the timelines play out differently.
Because of this, I'm gonna say that a version of @car not teleporting to that @car isn't proof that the universe is finite. I will thank you though because you've helped me understand a few things
@@tausiftaha12 thats kinda wrong, infinite space still has laws of physics and logic so only infinite possible things can hapoen
thanks for the existential crisis
Just look up. How else could this have gotten here? The answer is right in front of everyone's face, it's just whether we choose to accept it or not.
Watch Kurzgesagt, He gives existential crises X10
Good promo for a new brand of beer: "Infinity" you never run out of it!
It’s turtles all the way down.
Lol
You don't run out of beer; beer runs out of you.
I predict a lot of pissed off drunk guys who amazingly...ran out of beer
Infinity Beer: when you think you ran out of it another bottle appears from outside the Hubble Sphere.
The behavior of the subject being observed (the universe) is actually improving the functionality of the instrument (Hubble). I don’t think there’s any other circumstance in which that happens. Pretty incredible.
I'm starting to frak out:
*Space is created from nothing
*Time is created😮😮😮😮😮
*Time is slower somewhere
Now I understand the difference between "Hubble sphere" and "particle horizon"! Thank you!
Wow if that’s the known universe this guy must be huge!
@Avisha M I think he is joking about 4:07 lol
lmfaoooo
.....
Mind expanding as well as universe expanding! Thanks!
Better, uni-verse expands because mind expands ...and it expands at the speed of thoughts , the light of reason
This is easily PBS spacetime quality, please please do more videos like this one!
My puny human brain has difficulty understanding how the universe expands into itself and how and when time and the universe began if they ever did.
+DragonGirl It could be explained a little better than it usually is if it were more clearly explained that measurements of the universe show that the galaxies are currently separated by the distances they are after moving apart with expanding space at the rate of the measured Hubble Parameter for the time that the universe has been expanding. It follows logically that there was a time in the past that the distances between the galaxies that we measure today were all "ZERO." That was the big bang. Since the universe of today so directly and completely corresponds to that time in the past when there was no spatial separation between the matter of the universe (in fact, the density and temperature was so high that matter as we know it did not exist), then that time in the past is identified as t=0 of cosmic time, and the cosmic time that has elapsed since then is.....by scientific convention........considered to be the age of the universe. As for calculating what that time actually is, the simplest approximation of it is to assume that the expansion rate has been constant over all of time (in fact it varies with the mass and energy in the universe). Then it follows logically that the time of the expansion is simply the inverse of the Hubble Parameter. So a grade school student who has mastered long division can approximately calculate the age of the universe by simply dividing the numerical value of the Hubble Parameter (expressed in consistent units) into the number "1". It gives you an approximation of the age of the universe that agrees with the accepted value of 13.8 billion years within about 3 percent.
+DragonGirl You should search *dark energy*.
+DragonGirl I always like to think that Everything is expanding...always, including the Earth...and me. Since everything is expanding relative to everything else...you can never notice it. I started out only 6' tall...but now I'm 6 million feet tall, relative to past me...but since everything expanded with me...I'm still perceived as 6' tall. Or maybe I expand and contract relative to other brains around me...who knows. Infinity can really push the boundaries of imagination....even if there is nothing past the boundary of our universe...then that nothing would surely have to be infinite as well...so some kind of infinity almost has to exist.
+Patrick Kilduff you think a lot :p
+Patrick Kilduff Thats actually a really awesome theory.
Where is the centre of the universe?
No no, not that.
The centre of all matter in the universe!
+ǺиØи¥мØÜร It depends on who you ask. If the Universe is infinite then there is no "center". If you have a blank graph that is infinite in all dimensions then where is the center of that graph? It's completely arbitrary.
+Misaka Mikoto You're wrong. If the universe is infinite, every point on it can be considered its centre as it has infinite matter all around it
+Sejal Yadav There can't be infinite matter, an infinite amount of matter would fill space entirely, we would be a singularity of infinite proportions.
+ǺиØи¥мØÜร In the middle.
Wel pleyd sur.
Does this mean that my body is expanding at the speed of light, because I am in the universe? And we can't see the expansion because the measurements devices are also expanding, as is space to measure with?
Ffs. My mind has been melted.
The expansion of the universe is a very small effect that is only observed by redshift across the vast distances BETWEEN galaxies. It has no effect at all WITHIN galaxies, at the scale of atoms (where nuclear forces dominate) and people (where electromagnetic forces dominate) and planets and stars in the Milky Way (where gravity dominates.)
And expanding space is a metric expansion which increases with distance. The observed recession velocity of expanding space is the speed of light (relative to an observer on earth) at a distance of about 14 billion light years.
"Does this mean that my body is expanding at the speed of light" I suppose if your body was billions of light years in size then one end of your body may be expanding at the speed of light away from the other end of your body.
Or in other words because your body is so small it would be impossible to measure any expansion of your body.
It's like taking an elastic band and drawing two dots on it nearby each other, then stretching the band to double its length, the two dots you've drawn on it should still be nearby each other, even though the total stretch amount of the band is double.
Think about it this way:
If the universe started as a small dot, but is finite, (just a theory) than this entire universe was stuck inside of a small area. IF it started to expand at the speed of light, and is increasing in speed, than that means that we are expanding too at that speed right? I believe if the universe is finite than it wouldn't slow down in the middle because that would mean the outer boarder of the universe (the part, in your theory, that is expanding at the speed of light) would be very stretched out and skewed. Maybe this leads to why the universe is infinite? My theory only works if it's finite.
cody yoder It's a metric expansion of space....an increase in the scale of space itself. The metric expansion is the same everywhere in the universe, and its expansion rate is the Hubble Parameter, which is 70 kilometers per second per Megaparsec. How fast space is expanding depends on the distance from the observer. At 1 Megaparsec (3,260,000 light years) it's 70 km/sec.....at 2 Megaparsecs it's 140 km/sec....at 3 Megaparsecs it's 210 km/sec.....etc. It reaches the speed of light of 300,000 km/sec at a distance of 4,285 Megaparsecs (14 billion light years) from the observer at the center. You are at the center of the observable universe, so the expansion of space for you is effectively ZERO!
But what if I was observing it from another point. That would mean I am expanding with the universe right?
My understanding was, nothing moves faster than light, but the universe expands faster than the speed of light because of how things are moving relative to each other. Like if a car's top speed is 100mph, and two cars drive in opposite directions, if an observer in either car were to clock the speed of the other car, it would appear to be driving 200mph.
Your understanding is incorrect. Light is an exception to that intuition; it appears to travel at the same speed to all observers.
If you’re travelling at 1/4 the speed of light, light coming towards you still appears to travel at exactly the speed of light.
Check out the Michelson-Morley experiment which then led to special relativity.
When I was in childhood, I once asked my teacher how the universe is assumed to be having a boundary and what is there on the other side of the boundary(I didn't know that the universe is expanding). He simply mocked me that I am so stupid to ask these questions.
...because he was clueless.
Sounds like a dick. And yeah he was clueless.
What a wally. Shouldn't have been a teacher - you'd asked a great question.
He had never thought any farther than our solar system just like 90% of people today. Truly sad yet extremely arrogant how most believe Earth is all there is...
I thought that too when I was little lol
Thank you so much for using our song 'One Last Time'
A nit to pick: it would have been, in my estimation, helpful had you pointed out that while _some_ objects beyond the Hubble Sphere will emit light that can in principle one day reach us, notwithstanding the fact that when emitted the photons left an object receding away from us greater than the speed of light, it is the case that eventually those same objects will reach a point beyond which their newly emitted photons will never reach us. That is, you did well with the Hubble Sphere and the particle horizon, but kind of dropped the ball in pointing out that eventually everything not in our local cluster will recede away and hit a point beyond which it will no longer be possible to exchange information, and thus we'll lose causal contact.
@ The Justicar: Good comment! Actually, he dropped the ball in almost every possible respect when he talked about the Hubble Sphere. The essential point he was making was how photons emitted beyond the Hubble Sphere could come within the Hubble Sphere due to its increase in size. But he said: "Due to the accelerating expansion of space, our Hubble Sphere is actually getting bigger."
In fact, it's a SLOWING expansion rate of the universe that makes the radius of the Hubble Sphere get bigger......as happened in the early universe. Today's ACCELERATING expansion rate in fact causes the Hubble Sphere to get smaller.....exactly opposite to what he said......and which will cause the effect in the future that you describe.
It's a simple derivation from the Hubble Law to show that the radius of the Hubble Sphere is given as the speed of light divided by the Hubble Parameter. So the size of the Hubble Sphere moves inversely to the magnitude of the Hubble Parameter, and thus to the expansion rate of the universe.
Dannys99887 i'm not sure where you're getting this from, but that's not quite correct. Both the universe and the Hubble surface are expanding. The barrier at the Hubble surface itself is expanding as a constant, but the expansion of the universe itself, for very distant regions, is increasing exponentially. Even if the universe were not expanding, the Hubble surface would still expand.
The Hubble sphere isn't getting smaller. It's getting bigger every moment, but the rate at which it grows is nothing like capable of competing with the universe's expansion rate, and so, by comparison, it is proportionally smaller one moment to the next, but its total size continues to grow.
I know that objects between the Hubble surface and the particle horizon can in principle emit light while they're in there and have that reach us, but I don't remember all of the details as to why that is. I know it's related to assumptions of the model and the fact that the Hubble surface is only an approximation, so there's wiggle room left between that boundary and the particle horizon. But I'm playing Star Trek online and I can't be assed to read a paper on it to refresh my memory right now.
The Justicar You wrote: "The barrier at the Hubble surface itself is expanding as a constant, but the expansion of the universe itself, for very distant regions, is increasing exponentially." You clearly do not understand the fundamentals of the Hubble Sphere, because this and most of your entire comment is simply wrong. The point is that the Hubble Sphere has EXPANDED dramatically in the past relative to the size of the universe, and is now on a path of dramatic CONTRACTION relative to the universe. This behavior of the Hubble Sphere has given rise to the past and future composition of the Observable Universe. I'll try to explain the science for anyone who is now confused.
Contrary to what you said, what I wrote IS correct. I "GOT IT" (as you phrase it) from the fact that physics is my profession, and I have a solid grounding in astrophysics. In fact you don't have to be a physicist to figure out how to calculate the radius of the Hubble Sphere, and figure out how it changes over cosmological time. A fundamental understanding of the Hubble Sphere and the calculation of its radius are almost the first things you learn in this field. It's so well known, even among non-scientists, that you just about can't miss it these days if you do any reading on the subject at all.
The radius of the Hubble Sphere (sometimes called the Hubble Length) is the distance from the observer where space will carry an object away from the observer with a recession speed at exactly the speed of light. So inside the Hubble Sphere, space expands at less than light speed, and outside the Hubble Sphere space expands faster than light speed. The Hubble Law is: V=HD.....where V is the recession velocity, H is the hubble Parameter, and D is the distance of the object from the observer. Since the Hubble Radius is the distance at which the recession velocity exactly equals the speed of light "c", the Hubble Law becomes....c=HR.....where the recession velocity is c and the distance is the radius of the Hubble Sphere R. Solving for R.......R=c/H. The radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light divided by the value of the Hubble Parameter. So the radius of the Hubble Sphere varies inversely with the value of the Hubble parameter.
Since the Hubble Parameter varies DIRECTLY with the expansion rate of the universe (its units are velocity divided by distance), and the radius of the Hubble Sphere as calculated varies INVERSELY with the Hubble Parameter....then the radius of the Hubble Sphere varies INVERSELY with the expansion rate of the universe. So during a period of cosmological time in which the Hubble Parameter gets smaller (as happened in the fast moving but rapidly slowing early universe), the Hubble Sphere expands relative to the size of the universe and brings within itself photons which, when emitted, were outside of the Hubble Sphere. This is exactly what Derek Muller described here......except he assigned the wrong reason for the expanding Hubble Sphere.
Conversely, in an epoch of cosmological time in which the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating (such as has recently been discovered by Nobel laureates Perlmutter, Schmidt, and Riess for our own cosmological time), then the effect over time will be an increase in the value of the Hubble Parameter (reflecting the increasing velocity of universal expansion), and a corresponding contraction of the Hubble Sphere (relative to the size of the universe.) It's hard to find an article on this subject which does not discuss the fact that the recently discovered accelerating universe will mean a contracting Hubble Sphere in which less and less of the universe will be seen by future astronomers, as objects slip behind the Hubble Sphere and will no longer be seen. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson writes eloquently of a far distant future in which the observable universe may encompass no more than the local group of galaxies......or maybe little more than the radius of the Milky Way.
If you want to calculate the current radius of the Hubble Sphere for yourself, simply divide 300,000 kilometers per second (the speed of light) by 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec (the current value of the Hubble Parameter). You'll find that the radius is about 14 billion light years. This is about 30% of the radius of the current observable universe. So in terms of the distance from earth, about 70% of the current observable universe is moving with a transluminal recession velocity. This is a dramatic illustration of the rapidly expanding Hubble Sphere in the rapidly slowing early universe which brought the oldest photons within the observable universe of today.......including the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the Big Bang itself.
If you want to better understand the Hubble Parameter on a theoretical basis, you need to have a grasp of comoving vs proper coordinates, the cosmological scale factor, and the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric. The Hubble Parameter is fundamentally the time derivative of the scale factor of the universe (a velocity term) divided by the scale factor itself. From a simple scale factor calculation, it's noteworthy that in a universe that's expanding at a constant rate....not speeding up or slowing down......the ratio of the radius of the Hubble Sphere to the size of the universe is a constant.
You'll wish to check a reputable source for the validity of my expression for the radius of the Hubble Sphere. One place you can check is the Wikipedia article titled "Hubble Volume." Included in that article is this comment which summarizes what I've just derived and discussed in detail:
"However, the Hubble parameter is not constant in various cosmological models so that the Hubble limit does not, in general, coincide with a cosmological event horizon. For example in a decelerating Friedmann universe the Hubble sphere expands faster than the Universe and its boundary overtakes light emitted by receding galaxies so that light emitted at earlier times by objects outside the Hubble sphere still may eventually arrive inside the sphere and be seen by us. Conversely, in an accelerating universe, the Hubble sphere expands more slowly than the Universe, and bodies move out of the Hubble sphere."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume
Dannys99887 thats was more than ive learned in years. Thanks
Bomanske Quattro lol. Except that what he said is false.
I am confused about how Space Expansion would necessarily increase the Hubble Sphere, rather than space simply expanding *through* the sphere, effectively shrinking it, which is what I was taught as a possibility. Can anyone help with that?
2:22 Quote: 'due to the accelerating expansion, our Hubble Sphere is actually getting bigger'
This is just plain wrong, it's getting smaller.
As the universe expands faster, the region in space which moves away from us at the speed of light is getting closer.
From what we know, we've actually had a period in which the hubble sphere was growing, but that era ended roughly 5 billion years ago (in this era the universe's expansion was deaccelerating which made the hubble sphere grow)
For further reading: wikipedia: 'Accelerating expansion of the universe'
This is an unfortunate and misleading error in the video. The video is certainly WRONG in saying WHY the Hubble Sphere is getting bigger. But nevertheless, the Hubble Sphere IS in fact still increasing in size in PROPER distance. (Which is normally the way it’s described.) the Hubble Sphere is only decreasing in size in COMOVING distance (which factors out the cosmological expansion.)
Considering the Hubble Radius in PROPER coordinates:
By definition, the PROPER radius of the Hubble Sphere is the speed of light "c," divided by the Hubble Constant "H", (the metric rate of expansion of space.) And even though the recession velocity of individual galaxies IS in fact now accelerating, the Hubble Constant is STILL decreasing over time, as it has ever since the big bang. Therefore the Hubble Radius "c/H" INCREASES inversely with DECREASING "H".
The Hubble Sphere and its radius “c/H” is discussed in the Wikipedia article "Hubble Volume."
The somewhat counter-intuitive issue of a decreasing Hubble Constant in an era of dark energy acceleration is treated in many sources on Cosmology. Dr. Sean Carroll of Cal Tech has written about the issue in his blog article titled "Dark Energy FAQ." The issue is treated in mathematical detail in the Wikipedia article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)".
Briefly, mathematically, the Hubble Constant is the first time derivative of the scale factor DIVIDED BY the scale factor. Although the time derivative is accelerating, the RATIO of the time derivative divided by the scale factor (which is the Hubble Constant by definition) is not accelerating......in fact it's still decreasing. This is discussed in the "Detail" section of the Wiki article "Scale Factor (Cosmology)". SO in short, the Hubble Sphere in Proper Coordinates is not expanding because of the accelerating universe, it is expanding because of the STILL decreasing Hubble Constant.
Considering the Hubble Radius in COMOVING Coordinates:
The mathematics are simple. Since the Proper Radius is c/H, and since Comoving distance is proper distance divided by the Scale Factor, it follows that:
Comoving Radius = c /a H where "a' is the scale factor. Since H = da/dt / a, then:
Comoving Radius = c / a x da/dt /a
The "a" in the denominator divides out, and:
Comoving Radius = c / da/dt
Since in an accelerating universe da/dt is increasing with time by definition, then it follows that the Comoving Radius is decreasing over time.
Therefore, with dark energy acceleration, the galaxies are expanding outward, across the surface of the Hubble Sphere, never to be seen again in the Observable Universe of the future.
In other words, the Hubble Sphere is still expanding in Proper Coordinates, but it's not expanding faster than the space around it, as it was before dark energy became dominant in the expansion five billion years ago.
thank you !
Dannys998876 and, thank you too
I have the impression, if scientists do not understand how something works, they invent a 'Constant' to make things right. Never they will admit they have no clue.
@@Dannys-mb5xy for the people who didn't understand: the hubble sphere is increasing it's volume compared to the distances that do not move away faster than c, but decreasing it's volume comparing it to the ones that do.
But, hey that's just a theory, a universe theory
The word "theory" as the general public uses the term means an unsubstantiated speculative guess. On the other hand, a "scientific theory" (as science......and the Wikipedia article by that title defines it) is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.
A scientific theory (almost always mathematical in its structure) is the highest form of knowledge and understanding of the physical world. All branches of science are defined by scientific theories. This video describes the scientific theory of cosmology. It is solidly confirmed by physical data and is accepted by every reputable scientist in the world.
Dannys99887 it's a reference
gummybearslayer bob
Not sure what "it's a reference" is supposed to mean or how it's relevant. But maybe science just isn't your thing, and not knowing what a "theory" actually is presents no problem.......LOL.
Dannys99887 I know exactly what a scientific theory is. "It's a reference" means exactly what it's supposed to mean. The original commenter is referencing the Game Theory RUclips channel. Your comment was not relevant to what the OP meant
gummybearslayer bob
Pretty stupid I guess to think that "just a theory, a universe theory" as a reply to a science video about the universe might actually be referring to science, the science of the universe. I'm usually better at knowing which ones to ignore. Such as the one below that called Einstein "the fool that he has always been." Only on RUclips......LOL.
I just have more questions now.
Lol same, really confused now.
science never answers a question without creating 10 more
The Random Ausy Haha true, Asking questions and seeking knowledge is what results at success.
good
+Mohamed Raafi Yusuff search quran. my local mullah says everything including all the mathematics and physics is already there in quran. not kidding, he claims it.
93 billion light years? One light-year is 6 million miles multiplied by a million.
A million miles would take 54 days to travel at the speed of sound (767 miles per hour). So a light year would take roughly 890,000 years at the speed of sound.... But now we're talking about 93 billion of these.
I think the statement around 0:30 is misleading . When the universe formed, at around 10^-35th seconds the universe (the cosmological horizon) supposedly doubled 100 times by the time it was 10^-33 seconds old (according to Alan Guth). This was so fast that light couldn't travel from one side of the tiny universe (17 centimeters is one estimate) to the other. Today light can certainly travel 17 centimeters. The expansion rate of the universe during Inflation was vastly faster than today. Very distant objects are receding faster than the speed of light (space is expanding between them), but thats not the case between close objects. If you turn on a light switch the room gets light. That would not have happened at 10^-35th seconds. As long as the hubble parameter exceeds 0 there will be 2 points far enough from each other that they will recede faster than the speed of light. I just think its misleading to imply that everything is receding faster than light, and that todays recession speed is no different than when the universe formed.
Hm, my view on this would be that since the universe is somehow infinite, a universe that is by a gigantic inverse factor smaller (at the time of the big bang) than today, would still be infinatly large. A tiny number times infinite will always equal infinite, right?
Humble amateur view btw
I highly doubt any of hat happened at all
"that's not the case between close objects" Actually, the term is "gravitationally bound." Our entire galaxy is gravitationally bound, and so the space between the planets and stars in our galaxy is NOT increasing.
@@PatIreland I don't understand how this can be. Wouldn't the fabric of space be expanding equally everywhere? Gravity could still hold things together, but why wouldn't the space be increasing anyway?
There is something wrong with the explanation that we will be able to see light from a galaxy that is moving faster than light. If the observable universe starts going faster than the speed of light so will the galaxy beyond the observable horizon and so, in fact, you will never be able to see its light. The 'explanation' makes the mistake of unknowingly envisaging two separate parts of the universe and one telescoping into the other.This is obviously wrong.
Welcome Back to another episode of where quarantine has taken me to!
Wow, so much beyond comprehension. Makes me feel hubble some times.
On the scale of the universe, everything is incomprehensible.
From the space between your eyes and your screen to the speed of the photons emitted from your screen to the scale of the transistors in your device, nothing around you is comprehensible.
Booo
you just need to do some physics , which isn't that difficult really if you are willing and capable of giving a bit of time.
🤣
@@MandMs05 ...to the time it takes to orbit ya mom.
Thank you for essentially introducing the idea that things never began and will never end -- an idea that we need to shake off from our premature or ego-based perspectives of the nature of existence.
The first thing, about entire galaxies moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, is something I often try to explain to people simply because of how awesome it is. If you've ever seen this type of comment from me, chances are you've seen all the replies trying to refute it.
So thanks for that!
they are only moving apart from each other more than the speed of light relative to our perspective. But if you were "riding" one of the Galaxies in question, it could only appear to be moving away at less than the speed of light.
kerrywsmyth Everything in the universe must be looked at from some reference frame, yes.. No matter what reference frame you take, if galaxies are far enough away, they'll be separating faster than c.
Obviously "riding" something doesn't allow you to experience the expansion of space. Our planet is rotating, revolving around the sun, our solar system is spinning in the spiral arms of the Milky Way, etc..
***** Would be interesting to see the expansion from outside the universe (if there is such a "place")... Also, how isn't gravity / quantum fields getting weaker as space expands? (or do they?) ...off to google!
kerrywsmyth
But what about galaxies outside the huble sphere but inside the particle horizon? 3:35 Don't they look to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light?
itai alter Gravity totally gets weaker the further you go away from the source, but no force loses "Strenght" the more the universe expands. To make it simple, Forces only get weaker if you are far away from the charge that produces it.
We find out all this from not leaving Earth. interesting
🤐🤯
Math is the code of the universe. We're in an ongoing process of unveiling its secrets
Dan Fontaine
Lol, math is made by humans
Can’t games be programmed with any coding langauge? Yes math we have is human made, but math as a concept is intrinsic. Notation and font doesn’t matter
Xennit - that's like saying the number 3 is made by humans
Nothing in space moves faster than light, but space moves faster than light... Wait. Doesn't that mean technically that light in that space is moving faster than light?
My head hurts.
Imagine you have two fish in two sealed bowls of water, a meter in diameter. There is one fish in each. Each fish can only make 5miles per hour. Now you grab one bowl and run away from the other bowl at 20mph (you are pretty strong). Even if the fish would swim towards each other, the fish increase their distance all the way, since their spaces move faster apart. And then they crash into the bowl wall and my analogy is over.
not exactly, relativistically the speed of light is always the same
But the 'area' into which space expands is not yet part of space itself, so technically it could still be true, I think. If we consider the 'area' outside of expanding space to be nothing or perhaps 'potential space', we could still say that space travels faster than light into 'potential space', right? I'm really not sure, please someone correct me if I'm wrong because I'd love to learn more about this.
Christopher Mast - Legion of Weirdos consider the galaxy thats moving away from us faster than light. now consider this situation as an example, if the galaxy is moving 1000 m/s faster than the speed of light, the light emiting from galaxy is moving towards us at speed of light, hence the relative speed of the light is 1000m/s away from us, which is not much. the space would only need to expand at about a little more than a thousand meter/sec. thats wayy less than speed of light, hence the space is not moving faster than light.
Listen me. You can have an object that is faster then speen of light, it is not physically impossible. The speed of light is not a limit for the speed of the objects (fishes in the bowls, atoms or photons), but is a limit for the transfer of information.
So you can have two objects that are running from each other at the speed of light or faster, but they can't communicates with each other, and for each of them the other doesn't exist because it can't receive any physical influence from the other.
After watching this episode multiple times, I'm still confused about the universe age and the greatness of the observable universe. I mean this episode couldn't add anything to my knowledge thus far.
@Sidhart
I suggest you read books about astrophysics.
What I meant here, this gentleman couldn’t convey his knowledge in a simple way.
Yes, you are a typical religious person. Waiting for science to do all the hard works and when it gets obvious you guys tie it to your religious believes.
All those numbers and divisions never existed in any religious scriptures until you guys learnt how to read and write.
REMEMBER: there is no creator. God/creator didn’t make man, man made gods/ creator. And to save and secure their gods, man invented religion to eventually financially get benefit from it and of course that god assume them power and authority to rule over stupid, uneducated people.
For those here who REALLY want to try and understand this, watch some videos on dimensions. Yes, those videos will also make your head hurt. But, watch them, then watch this again. It won't make 100% perfect sense to us. But it will give you a better understanding of what he is saying.
If you watch a video like this without some kind of background, it will either make you make you turn away from things like this. Or it will make you thirsty for more. But trying to understand this, is like telling a person the answer to something, without telling you *how* they got the answer.
Anyone remember is high-school our Math teachers telling the students to, *SHOW THEIR WORK?* Well this is the perfect example. He is essentially showing you "an answer" to something. But we don't know the work behind how he arrived at his conclusions. He does give little bits here and there. But if you really want to know this stuff....then simply ask yourself after you finish this video, "How did he come to those conclusions?" Do this after every video, and you'll find yourself going deeper and learning in the process.
the more you "understand" , the less you understand.. and the more it starts to boggle your mind.
Knowledge is a sphere which borders the unknown. The larger it gets the more unknown it comes in contact with.
The more you understand, the more you understand. Your understanding grows, it does not shrink.
The universe isn't infinite because eventually the matter will stop spreading apart, and will crunch back together after a stand still. Saying that the universe is infinite is like saying the a growing boy is infinite because he is growing... eventually he will stop growing and fade away again.
The Big Crunch is just one possible end to the universe. It will only occur if space is positively curved (which hasn't been observed) and the curvature is too great for dark energy to compensate.
Even if it does happen, it's just the reverse of the big bang - it doesn't care what size the universe is. It works perfectly well in an infinite one.
The video doesn't say that the universe will be infinite because it will continue to grow for all eternity; it's saying that it probably started out that way.
Zazz30
I know the Big Crunch is only one theory but it doesn't change the fact that the universe isn't infinite, I only added that extra bit.
Daniel Studer
You guys are missing the point, just read my comment without the fucking crunch added in there damn.
It hasn't been proven that the universe is finite though. A finite universe has repeatedly failed to manifest itself, while the technicalities behind an infinite universe are getting more and more plausible. As such, while unproven, a infinite universe is the leading candidate in the scientific community.
This guy isn't a quack, this is mainstream science.
Zazz30
How can it be infinite if it's still growing? Infinite means forever, not forever growing. There's an outer rim to the universe, expanding, and at that rim, there is the end.
So if we measure 3D space by "volume", then while the universe "expands", we notice that particles don't increase in volume or mass. Nothing is being "stretched thin" like you would expect. Take a sealed sphere. It has a set volume, and a finite amount of mass that exists within it. If you stretch or expand that sphere, you're not creating more mass, but rather stretching the distance between all atoms so that your mass fills your volume. Apply that to the universe. We don't see our world getting stretched out, yet we say the universe is expanding. Those two things would contradict each other. But that also means that the universe would have a finite volume, even if we can't see it or detect it yet. And to take that one step further, we say nothing can be created or destroyed, only change from one form to another. Meaning you can't create matter from nothing, or have matter permanently disappear from existence. That means the universe has a finite amount of mass. That also means that if it's expanding, because it's finite, in order to take up more volume (while maintaining mass), it would have to expand INTO something else, thus, gaining volume. Now if we say that the universe isn't expanding "into" anything, it's just expanding, then we've clearly come to the conclusion that there is a separation between "nothing" and "the universe". If the universe was literally ALL there is, then it would have no need to expand, as it would already occupy all of existence, making expansion meaningless. If that's the case, that means that what we observe as expansion, could actually be everything being COMPRESSED, giving the illusion of an "expanding" universe.
We are still a "relatively" young species. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years for us to finally be technologically advanced enough to find the answers we are looking for. We've come a long way since not even knowing what fire was. But we have a long way still to go.
Underrated comment!
Ok that explanation was real good
If our universe is infinite, does that negate the possibility of it being part of a larger multiverse?
No; other universes wouldn't be in our space, they would have their own space (or possibly some concept that is unlike what we identify as "space").
I guess you could think of it sorta like how the "space" inside one game doesn't exist inside another game, for example.
But depending on the nature of the multiverse; a better analogy would be how you can have things in the same room but different floors in a building without them being visible to each other. And there are probably other different analogies for some different interpretations of what is a multiverse.
No, think it this way: the group of odd numbers is infinite, however, odd numbers belong to a larger group: Real numbers, which is infinite too. Remember some infinites are larger than other infinites.
If you imagine two infinite paper sheets, having infinite 2 dimensional coordinates, they could lay on top of each other, expanding in the 3rd dimension. Likewise the universe could expand in a even greater dimension without ever intercepting with another universe.
multiverse is like the god hypothesis. No evidence, just a theory.
chocoboyc Wrong. "Theory" doesn't mean that there is no evidence. A theory is something, that has proven postulates and has been tested. What you mean is a hypothesis.
I love that there are so many science videos on RUclips
Ikr 👕
You explained this very well. Of course, it makes sense: we see that light because our part of the observable universe is expanding with it. We simply don't see its exact location because that location has been and still is always moving.
Thanks a lot...
I just wanted to watch some understandable science, before going to bed. And now I'm gonna think about the expansion of the universe from everywhere to everywhere and how we can observe it as an expansion, though it might not only expand away from us, but also towards us.... -.-
;)
Doesn't anyone realize this sounds insane? Practically, everything in this video (and most comments) is pure nonsense, a fairytale at best.
There is not a single proof, everything he talks about is based on some mathematical formulas (concepts), that don't have ANY relation to reality!!
Remember, SPACE is NOTHING!! It does NOT exist!
Nothing cannot expand nor shrink and only NOTHING (0, zero) can be infinite.
Nothing in a real world can be infinite!!
If you believe in this nonsense, then tell me how do you create, move, bend or shrink space (nothing)? Space is a concept, it does NOT exist in a material sense, the ONLY thing that exist is MATTER (an atom), nothing else! Space and energy are concepts, they don't exist!!
Wake the fuc… up!
@@Iron_Byte Space is not nothing. It may seem like nothing but there are an uncountable amount of Photons which travel through space every second. How can you call Space nothing. On a quantum level there are a multitude of particles at work. Some that we can't detect due to how enert they are. We as humans see on a 4d plane. However Space could be on 5 or 6 dimensional plane which we cannot see. And we can bend space. Not ourselves but Black Holes do. Its gravitational pull is so dense that it causes a depression in space on a plane that isnt observable by humans.
Humans are like gluons in a Universe. We dont even know if size matters in terms of objects in the Universe. We have no scale to go by. So for all you know our universe could be the size of an atom. Therefore Space is infinite.
You have no way of determining our scale to the Unobservable Space .
So you cannot say that Space is not infinite.
Without Energy you would'nt move. I don't know what substances you were on to think like this....
Can you reccomend me some of them?
@@KS-vo3hf Hey genius - show me a drawing of a space. Otherwise shut up.
BTW - read my comment again - I said, the only thing that IS infinite is space - nothing else!!
The only reason space is infinite is because space is nothing!
@@Iron_Byte the rigorous concepts in any field sound like nonsense if you don't have a background in it.
Some examples:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_basis_of_synesthesia (neuroscience)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality (sociology)
Awesome representation of infinite expanding space at 4:50
I'm now more confused than when I arrived here.
Don't know if you'll ever read this, but is an honest feedback from someone who like what you do. Most of your latest videos are been presented with a negative connotation, stating that some of the information we have or the believe and understanding is wrong, just look at your titles:
- misconceptions about electricity
- we're building computers wrong
- most people don't know how bikes work
- misconceptions about the expansion of the univers
- etc
I understand the title that could be clickbait, but also your videos are structured in a way of saying what you think is wrong and then showing why you think that, when the "truth" is always a bit in the middle, you are quite smart so you know how to construct your statements in a clever way, but I think it would be great to use a positive structure instead of a negative one. Show and say what you want to show and say, but without having to always do it as to debunk a "misconception" that was never a misconception.
For example in this case of the expansion and big bang that happened in an infinitesimal "place", that's right and wrong depending how you see it, if there was no space before you can't say that it was in a "place"and it could have and always been infinte.