How We Know The Universe is Ancient
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/Dona...
↓ More info below ↓
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
pbsspacetime.com/
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
tinyurl.com/yx...
The universe is precisely 13.8 billion year old - or so our best scientific methods tell us. But how do you learn the age of the universe when there’s no trace left of its beginnings?
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Dan Falk & Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, & Pedro Osinski
Directed by: Andrew Kornhaber
Camera Operator: Bahaar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @jrsschattenberg
#space #astrophysics #cosmology
Special Thanks to our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Alexander Tamas
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Juan Benet
Morgan Hough
Radu Negulescu
Quasar Supporters
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova Supporters
chuck zegar
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Hank S
John Hofmann
John Pollock
John R. Slavik
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Julian Tyacke
Mathew
Matthew O'Connor
Matthew Ryan
Syed Ansar
Timothy McCulloch
william bryan
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
A G
Adrian Hatch
Adrien Molyneux
AlecZero
Andreas Nautsch
Bradley Jenkins
Brandon labonte
Brandon Lattin
Brian Blanchard
Craig Stonaha
Dan Warren
Daniel Lyons
David Bethala
David Hughes
DFaulk
Eric Kiebler
Frederic Simon
Geoffrey Short
Graydon Goss
Greg Smith
Jennifer Crosley
John Funai
John Robinson
Josh Thomas
Justin Waters
Kevin Lee
Kevin Warne
Kyle Hofer
Malte Ubl
Mark Daniel Cohen
Michael Conroy
Mirik Gogri
Nick Virtue
Nick Wright
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Patrick Sutton
Paul Rose
Protius Protius
Robert Ilardi
Scott Gossett
Sean Warniaha
Shane Calimlim
Simon Oliphant
Steve Bradshaw
Tatiana Vorovchenko
Tim Stephani
Tonyface
Tybie Fitzhugh
Yannick Weyns
Yurii Konovaliuk
Kiersten Thamm
Hey Space Timers! Due to some Corona related issues, we had a challenging time getting this episode ready and we ultimately left out the on screen credit for our very valued Patreon Supporters. So we'd like to give our Patreon supporters a top comment shoutout and let everyone know that regular on screen credit will return next week.
Big Bang Supporters
Alexander Tamas
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Juan Benet
Morgan Hough
Radu Negulescu
Quasar Supporters
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova Supporters
Chuck Zegar
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Hank S
John Hofmann
John Pollock
John R. Slavik
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Julian Tyacke
Mathew
Matthew O'Connor
Matthew Ryan
Syed Ansar
Timothy McCulloch
William bryan
Who you looking at? Is there someone over my right shoulder?
You guys believe in UFOs?
Universe its just there...
It can never zoom in zoom out its goes on n on unless all the physicality looses its energy to live and it all be just dark empty space .
Which is "Nothingness" we just cant imagine that coz we never saw& things which we can't see we can't imagine anything...
Its all dark ...
Even when we close our eyes and whatever we imagine its still in a black background that is Nothingness and one cannot imagine that Darkness ...
its like its just there it is "time" we dont know whats Future or Past its just ...
"We live We go,
our time is end" ...
arjunxavier08@gmail.com 😉
Imagine something apart from darkness???
Even if you imagine a white background and something or whatever you want , still you are imagining it in The background of Darkness...
And thats Nothingness, you just cant imagine or think of anything...
Its logical not Scientific...
WRONG, 14.2 NOT 13.8
In the alternate universe where Matt is a cook instead of a physicist, his show is called "Spice Time."
One day there is a big bang from the microwave in the background. His house special, Cosmic Egg, has overheated and exploded. He decides to add Thyme and presto, Primordial Soup.
This is great
Space thyme*
@@tantrispicks2440 you forgot to add some siracha😅
Allah says in the holy Quran
- We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, (50:38)
and also in chapter 41 , verse 10
And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its [creatures'] sustenance in _four days_ without distinction - for [the information] of those who ask.
in these two verse Allah says that he created universe in 6 days and then he created earth on the 4th day , which is 2/3 of 6 days. also earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago , when the universe was about 2/3 of its present age.
if we divide the age of universe into 6 parts , than this 1 day would be equal to about 2.3 billion years , and when the universe was 4 days old The God created the earth ,thats is the universe's age is 9.2 billion years old (2.3×4=9.2) ....also
2.3 billion year old= 1st day
4.6 billion year old= 2nd day
6.9 billion year old= 3rd day
9.2 billion year old=4th day, earth is created
11.5 billion year old= 5th day
13.8 billion year old= 6th day , present.
The Quran exactly presents that the earth was formed (4.6 billion yrs ago)when the universe was
about 9.2 billion years .
“We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth” [Fussilat 41:53]ruclips.net/video/fmVUsTk9EtU/видео.html
If we were to discover definitive proof that the universe were significantly older than we currently believe, which of our assertions about the universe would most likely be to blame for the miscalculation?
Amazing question! Now I want to know too!
That we were smart enough to sort it out in the first place? Just a guess mind you.
Possibly disagreement on the value of the Hubble's constant (Universe rate of expansion). PBS Space Time did a previous episode on this major unsolved cosmological problem that PBS called the "Crisis of Cosmology", where different measurement techniques produce different results, which are too different even after accounting for a margin of error. It could therefore mean not a measurement error but that our theory is incomplete, and any new theory could be significantly different to predict a change in the age of the Universe, since the age of the Universe is very much tied to the Hubble's constant.
ruclips.net/video/72cM_E6bsOs/видео.html
Hmm there is growing evidence that there is far more widespread peculiar velocities that might not cancel out based on surveys so I would bet on that throwing off the age of the universe though it would be hard to test as no one has solved the Einstein field equations for a universe where there is an initial directional bias in the structure of the Early universe. Personally as the evidence grows for quite different Hubble constants (and thus ages of the universe) depending on whether using the Early or modern Universe i.e. CMB and baryon acoustics etc give one age while Supernovae red giants and the like give another.
If there was a small but nonzero bias then redshifts might differ based on the direction you look in a way that wouldn't cancel out by simply averaging galaxies equally to cancel their peculiar velocities at least not given the sample sizes of galaxies we have been able to observe so far where as methods based off the Early universe would have a far smaller bias or perhaps even no bias depending on the source of the discrepancy which would make their measurements far more accurate..
As the evidence from surveys build that some degree of asymmetry is real and not an observational bias (I'm skeptical about claims made above and beyond that) it seems most plausible that the local universe is just too asymmetric for the type of averaging used (and perhaps even the Friedman equations) to accurately estimate the expansion rate without accounting for the larger bulk flow within which we are embedded.
I'm not convinced the universe is older than the CMB's estimate but if it is I would suspect that it would simply mean that a larger percentage of the CMB dipole was due to the asymmetric geometry of the universe rather than purely our galaxies peculiar velocity.
@ReligionlessFAITH Congratulations, son, that's a good lot of prime gibberish you got there. Nope, you sure don't see quality gibberish like that any more.
The universe was smaller and hotter when it was young, weren't we all?
Some people are minors
Who else came back to see if just maybe it really was Robert James smith commenting on space time
@@dwigtschrude Unfortunately not, I really like The Cure though, maybe in a parallel universe?
[*sigh*]
[ *looks down with hands in pockets.*]
[*Kicks dirt*]
Yes.
No doubt!!
Wow. I remember when it was only 13.7 Billion years old. They grow up so fast!
They should admit this isnt real science.
@@wilsontexas You should admit you are not a real scientist.
@@ObjectsInMotion neither was darwin
@@wilsontexas Hmm, made observations of the world around him and formulated a group of hypothesis to explain the underlying phenomena and then having those assumptions and conclusions rigorously tested and reproduced in a peer-reviewed process? Sounds like he was a scientist to me. In fact, sounds to me that you only think he wasn't because you disagree with what he thought. Now that's not science at all!
@@ObjectsInMotion his ideas arent reproduceable nor observable. Poor Darwin didnt know anything about DNA nor molecular biology...his hypothesis is in question more and more among scientists who can think out of the box.
if the human race ever does get to be space fairing and be able to visit other worlds, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.
Crop circles are how you know aliens are highly ethical. They never appear in places where food is scare, or has a good chance to become scarce.
TFW we meet aliens for the first time and learn that their genitals look like crop circles...
Nah, leave a black obelisk with no writing, & no tool marks.
And when the planets that we did it to gain intersellar travel themselves we'll tell them, "When we we younf, some dicks did it to us. We're just gettin' 'em back." And the universal cycle of pointless vengeance will remain unbroken. Kind of beautiful in its own way.
I mean it is possible that taking live stuck make marks on fields is like the same as putting microchips on animals or catching som to test how they doing in the wild.
Like we here going "OMG what dose it mean, what they trying to say" and tay like "only mild signs of pollution from the old gelatik explosion , lokal life forms looks well, off to next plant.
(writing this made me realise another reason the idea of "the day the earth stood still" is such a ludicrous dumb idea, there's no reason to think aliens would give a crap about our population or state of life on this planet, an there could out here trying to clean up there own pollution we don't even realise is here, just like turtles in the ocean don't get what plastic pollution is or were its coming from. wouldn't it be ironic if we were like theis lifeforms that had somehow survived in a weird aftermath of a big alien disaster. it could explain why Mars and Venus is gone why we seem to be alone in the galaxy, alins a like; holyshit look at theis weird life forms triving where no life should be able to live.)
Given how mind-glowingly far away galaxies are, I kinda like Kant’s characterization of them as island universes
I mean those are just labels we give these constructs, it doesn't matter what we call it as long as everyone agrees and knows what it means
Exactly, but I do enjoy the poetic nature of the title Kant used
Could you guys do an episode on the nature of time, and the theories about it? Love from Australia, hope you are staying safe Matt.
If you are looking for some extra reading, I would recommend “About Time” by Paul Davies
No, how about an episode on Australia. Love from Time
"Time is an illusion. Lunch-time doubly so." - Douglas Adams.
Kiaora from Aotearoa bro, be cool if they open up the Australasian bubble, we need the tourism 👍
Is there an episode about spacetime at a quantumlevel?
Easy: just cut the universe down and count the rings!
No just ask the universe how old it is haha 😂
Really easy... first take the bones of the fifth elefant, then weld an age in mordor, and then cut Yggdrasil. Take a vacation on Mount Graham. And start counting.... start at 1 and don't miss out on 4 do not stop at 3 but if you go to far...
Enjoy
"Laughs in Norse mythology"
@@chilaphoi That doesn't work on the internet. Trust me.
You will need a large saw
1.99m subs. Almost to 2m! Congrats Matt, and everyone behind the scenes!
huge gratz to the animators, phenomenal work.
Yep and Matt has to drop the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. Or something like that.
Thanks for using my image on the thumbnail! I'm glad it's useful! Awesome content PBS Space Time as always!
Hmmm I'm curious bout this pic where can I see it better?
I feel kinda cheesy making a comment like this because of course everyone appreciates these videos, but I do want to say thank you for taking the time to make these. Of course thank you to the awesome people supporting on Patreon too. Space stuff has always brightened my day and I feel like I've learned a lot from these videos, I really appreciate it.
Anyone wants to check out some yet-unkown-to-him/her science-youtuber?
@@loturzelrestaurant which one?
@@loturzelrestaurant so long as it's not a creationism one.
@@neilsiebenthal9254 Haha, yeah.
You need to tell me though what you specifically seek, so i can do my best. And also clarify 'soft' science or 'hard' science, if you know what i mean with that.
@@AceOfSpadesX How about making a playlist with videos of Sci Man Dan as well as PBS Space Time,
where each next video is from the other channel, going back and fort and back and forth, so you have the best viewing-expereince?
For all creationists the first structures humans built date back 12,000 years & are older than any of your estimates
Humanity is literally older than their myth.
How We Know The Universe is Ancient... Just look at the greyness and greatness of Matt's beard.
the history of things being named by those who intended to mock such things is wild
Happens a lot in economics. "Capitalism" was a term coined by Karl Marx. Neoclassical Economics got its name from the Institutional economist Thorstein Veblen.
Michelson-Morley agree.
I agree
Thank you Matt and PBS Spacetime for bringing some relief during the pandemic. I always look forward to your videos
So if the universe is precisely 13,8 billion years old, does that mean that the Universe began on a Monday?
That's illegal
Probably Saturday
That would actually explain many things ;-)
Yeah It was a Monday but it waited till 8:45 to get started; so freakin' typical!
Friday the 13,∞'th
Edit - ermm.. Actually, 1.38^tenth to be more Matt precise 🥰
Speaking about the history of the universe, Matt O'Dowd says "Long story short." Got to love the way he just leaves irony on the floor waiting for someone to pick it up.
When James Webb is launched in 2050 this number might change again
The world will sink into climate related garbage before then, and the launch might never happen.
Lol! I want my flying car and cold fusion generators first! The James Web is a recent promise. You have to get in line!
2050? Hopefully a little sooner lol
2050?
You're being optimistic.
It already has (13:30) m.ruclips.net/video/73ZXk_I9h5s/видео.html#searching
this is such a positive show... maybe there’s a hope for humanity
Oh there's hope... Definitely
@Zord90 My atoms are getting ripped right now and it's not so bad, so don't worry
Hope?...CCP virus....hold my beer.
Hope, does anyone even consider the last 10k years scientists say we’ve been modern and what humanity has been through during that time? We have more than hope. We have 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year to live life no matter how difficult and the choice to make the best of it or focus on when the last tick on our individual clock will be.
Doomsday prophecies going strong in science communities. Strange.
Probably my favourite moment from back in the day when Adam Spencer & Wil Anderson did breakfast radio:
Adam: The universe is 13.8 billion years old.
Wil: *sings* Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you… should we get it a present?
Adam: What do you get the universe that has everything?
"Vesto Slipher" is an amazing name.
Yes
he added melvin to hide his extraterrestrial origins
Still having trouble reconciling "the universe is infinite in size" and "the universe has a finite age". Especially if the universe started from a singularity. Going from infinity small to infinitely large in a moment of planck time queues the meme "well, that escalated quickly." :)
The observable part of the universe is finite, the part of it that light has had time to reach us from. We don't know how much more of it there is beyond that, so there is no consensus about whether "the universe is infinite in size".
Well that 'inflated' quickly...
@@Mosern1977 Speak for yourself.
The fact that it was a singularity doesn't necessarily imply that it was infinitely small ;) It just means that its density was infinite.
The universe didn't start as an infinitesimal point or a singularity, it's just the observable universe (which is definitely finite) that was really small at the time of the "big bang". There's a great minutephysics video (ruclips.net/video/q3MWRvLndzs/видео.html) on it, where Henry argues that it should be called the "Everywhere Stretch" rather than the Big Bang because it leads to fewer misconceptions of the theory.
"Vesto Slipher" sounds like a supervillain name.
_"How do you learn the age of the universe when there's no trace left of its beginnings?"_
*You count the Birthday Candles!*
they have no idea on anything they talk about. next time your at the beach,pic a grain of sand,name it earth,then drop it..that,is where we are.& what we know, NOTHING.
walker lol. You seem mad. The pursuit of knowledge angers you. How interesting.
So a number of things occur to me after watching this video.
1. Seeing the ways that people in the past have theorized and observed the universe is always kind of amazing to me. It's easy to forget that grand ideas and theories are often just an amalgamation of smaller observances of the past. It's humbling. No matter how much you learn/know, perspective is just as important.
2. The Big bang theory is effectively built in a kind of chain of observations and discoveries. If any of these observances or discoveries turn out to be wrong then the chain breaks. Not necessarily the whole chain however. The further back in the chain a hypothetical link breaks the more hypothetical damage could be done to the theory itself.
3. this is kind of an expansion on thought number 2. All of this information has been obtained by looking up and scribbling numbers. it's amazing. With the new Webb telescope in orbit we're going to be learning mind blowing discoveries and seeing that certain assumptions were wrong. This could be relatively small things or they could be game changers in terms of grand theories. We might make discoveries that definitely prove the General Relativity, Quantum theory, or even disprove the both of them somehow. Just as perspective is so important to discovery, so is clarity. The Webb telescope is effectively our next step in both clarity and perspective. I wonder how much of our current understanding will change, expand, and/or collapse.
4. Final note. It was kind of just thrown in there but I have to point out what I see as a totally inane point. When it was mentioned that he Pope saw the Big Bang as evidence for Creation the host narrator also mentioned Maitre's point. Which was along the lines of the Big Bang being beyond any metaphysical understanding. what a ridiculously inane and highly erroneous statement. Whether or not I believe in a hypothetical religion or Creation of any kind will be kept secret, because I feel it's of no importance. My bugbear with his statement is purely in it's logic. The Big bang being a product of an all powerful entity snapping their cosmic fingers seems just as likely as the work of quantum forces spontaneously creating the world. Making an absolute statement about it's place in the universe is totally narrow-minded and quite stupid. It has been said that these two things need not even be separate ideas. That both could easily be true at the same time. Not sure how I feel about it but I find the argument quite compelling. Is it possible, I wonder, for a phenomenon to be both totally scientific and natural while also being supernatural and metaphysical? Are we, as a society, pushing a paradigm of opposing binary perspectives where a binary need not exist? Something the chew on. I certainly do not have the answer.
4. Is a stupid point to make.
Great video. The difference between a type 0 and a type 3 civilization has been estimated to be 1 million years. It is is amazing to think that an alien civilization that appeared just 1 million years earlier than humanity, may now have the resources to visit us.
Why?
And how about 1 billion years and even 1 trillion years? :)
In a few centuries all the useful resources on earth will be depleted, that doesn’t leave us much time to build spaceship and colonize our solar system. That’s if we don’t destroy the human civilizations first. That’s a major problem that any advanced civilizations would have to face, resources depletion on their home planet because of overgrowing population, wars, pollution etc
Can a galaxy be so redshifted that the light it emits arrives to us in radio frequency?
I don’t think so but there are galaxies red shifted below the vision of Hubble, that is what the James Webb telescope is supposed to see.
Interesting question
No. The most distant light we know of is the CMB, which has been redshifted from visible to microwave. This light was emitted before galaxies had formed. There ARE galaxies so redshifted that their light peaks in the infrared however.
It should also be noted that galaxies emit a whole spectrum of light, so that their UV or x-ray emissions may be redshifted *into* the visible spectrum.
In the future this will happen.
Ya dude
I tend to think the Universe is incredibly young, compared to its expected lifespan of trillions of years.
But most of it is going to be a cold, dark and empty place with black holes being the only things to exist.
Red dwarfs will burn for trillions of years. Any black hole will make even that look like a second
Congrats in advance for reaching *2 million subscribers*
One of the first episodes in a long time I /think/ I actually understand after a single watch... when I watch it a second time I'll realize it's all going over my head.
Anyone wants to check out some yet-unkown-to-him/her science-youtuber?
The universe was four billion years old when I was in grade school. I hope to see my ten billionth birthday soon.
12:45 "... when the universe was much smaller and much hotter ..."
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I love bigger and hotter😏
@@eclipse369. Like his wife indeed 😈.
Lolice here, open up
Universe? Buddy, that's my wife.
I'm curious about the CMB map. I have seen it many times before and have always wondered, how it is oriented? I assume it is a projection of the celestial sphere analogous to maps of Earth, right? But where is the north and south on the sky? The stars (and also regions of universe containing them) visible from Earth are different, depending on the place on the Earth's surface, current time of day and of year. There are also no other good reference points, since everything is constantly moving with regard to everything else. Then how do you even go about orienting the CMB map, or any map of the sky for that matter? Do you pick a particular time of day and year, a particular location on Earth, and just ignore miniscule year-to-year differences, or is there some other trick behind it?
I have the right video for you:
ruclips.net/video/44scJrLT6sE/видео.html
"Which way is up in space" from DeepSkyVideos with Dr Meghan Gray. It's a side topic of talking about M53, which is also interesting.
Short answer: Common reference coordinate systems are the ones oriented along the rotation axis of
* earth
* the solar system
* the milky way
In that order, usefulness increases with distance of the observed object.
That's perfect, thank you both!
It's been over a year since this was published. Time to update the age of the universe on the title to 13,800,000,001.
Confirmed: cats know way more about quantum space than we do.
And gravity, for that matter.
Yes. Like knowing the secrets to be both dead and alive at the same time!
Bad Joke Police here (BJP)
yes. we kan quantum purrfectly. we just not tell yoo. and me food is fuynally heer so I giv da laptop back to me human naw.
My cat knows how to walk in the same place in the same second as I do! He is smart!
Is there still a recording of that programme in which the term "Big Bang" was coined? It's kind of a historic moment, isn't it?
Pretty sure it was started as a slander by Fred Hoyle.
from wiki: "in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio, and his promotion of panspermia as the origin of life on Earth."
The radio waves are still traveling away from Earth, get in the wormhole and bring your wireless.
I don't know if they still exist, but I would guess not. If the BBC would erase Dr. Who, there is no barbarity that is beyond them. However, the lectures were published in _The Listener,_ the Beeb's magazine, and also in a book. See academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
@@fillemptytummy I dont think you need a wormhole, you could just travel after them, maybe you could catch some of them bouncing back from a interstella object, or find some stuck around a black hole ^^
@@michaelsommers2356 Thanks! Yeah, I also did a bit of research and saw that it was printed. But it would've been great to actually _hear_ the first time someone called it the "big bang."
Not only is this the best channel on youtube, but It has one of the funniest and most thought provoking comment sections on the site.
Well, I got to know this channel maybe a couple of weeks ago. It is an amazing one and reminds me that I could be there understanding fully all notes if I had chosen a different carrier path. But still, great way of sharing knowledge to all. I will probably watch all back from the start of your playlists one day. Thumbs up!
Why not try new youtubers though?
How about Veritasium and Sci Man Dan for the start and you come back later for more?
@@loturzelrestaurant Ah, I did find Sci Man Dan in the meantime and i'm following it.
I guess the main issue is always time. When you're a father of two kids, working a lot, time is a rarity. But hey, 20 years ago we would have dreamed for the internet to rise to be a place of knowledge with such videos, so I am quite happy.
@@Lirky77 Totally understandable.
...But... may i make a suggestion?
...Sell your 2 kids... and you have 2 kids less...
Mhahahahaha.
A massive F to Radu Negulescu, pay your respects fellas.
It may be a coincidence, but he could be a known young romanian entrepreneur. Anyway, respect from a fellow romanian.
In case anyone wonders, F doesn't refer to anything like the "F" word and instead it's a keyboard key that is frequently used to "perforn an action" in video games and is a reference to one. Sorry Pablo for spoiling the reference a bit, but "a massive F to Radu" could be read the wrong way by some :D
Ruslan lol yeah,more specifically it means ‘pay respects’ to Radu
Fr. Georges Lemaitre is an amazing astrophysicist. He suffered from anti-Catholic prejudice in his career. A good roll model
Everyone: We know everything there is to be known about Universe
Hubble: Hold my telescope
Atheists have explored nothing but claim God doesnt exist.
@@wilsontexas irrelevant..
@@azwris Having a world view that skews your view of the world directly affects science
•Watching PBS space-time: FREE (or for contributors, the amount that you contribute ;-)
•Seeing an astrophysicist calm & coddle his kitty: PRICELESS
as always gorgeous, thank you PBS👍
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" claims that mice are hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, responsible for the Earth's ten-million-year research program to find the Ultimate Question, but I think it got it wrong. It's actually cats. 😼
@@eclipse369. Treat a dog badly and it stays, treat cat badly and it finds a better "owner". Dogs are saps. 😛
Somehow I read the title "How we know the universe is an accident"
Papa universe wanted a quike
correct the first time,,we were an engineered accident..or we wouldnt be here.
That's ok, I read accent and now I wanna know what accent it has.
Hey! I really love your videos. They help me understand so much that my college doesn't have time to cover in our classes. I'm trying to write a paper based on some things I have learned in other videos, and I was wondering if you guys kept track of your sources for these different videos? i am trying to dive a little deeper into some of the content, and I want some more sources for my paper.
How does the current "crisis in cosmology" inform the age of the universe? I was surprised to hear Matt say "precise age" a couple times when describing the 13.8 billion year old universe. Doesn't our understanding of the age lean heavily on whether the supernova data or CMB data or neither or another are the more true measure used to derive the Hubble Constant? Just looking for a little clarity. I know Matt is well aware of all this and would love to be set straight in my head about whether I should be thinking "precise" or "up in the air" when I hear 13.8 billion. Thanks
I wanted a little clarity too, but no one put an answer tho ):
This guy would have to be amazing to get into a conversation with!
Facts!
When calculating the universes' age, isn't the result confined within what we call the "known", or "observable" universe? If so, wouldn't that leave a lot of "non-observable" universe not accounted for in terms of calculating answers to large scale questions such as this? Have we proven yet that we know how much "universe" there is beyond what we can observe?
Second question: When referring to "expansion" of the universe, what is it exactly that is expanding? The distance between matter is increasing: (One could assume space-time has a fixed size and matter is moving away from matter in space-time)? Or is space-time itself expanding and matter is moving with it like dots on a balloon being inflated would move apart.
Good point!
Great questions! I'm not Matt, but I've watched every video on this channel, so I'll hazard an informed (if less-studious) explanation.
It is absolutely true that we can only make calculations based on what can be observed: the observable universe. But without some differentiating evidence, we can be fairly certain that the "unobservable" universe started at the same time. We can see this by considering the consequences of running time backwards to the beginning. As things get closer together, they don't reach the singularity at different times; there is no (apparent) scrunching or bunching of matter and energy occurring at that scale, where the unobservable stuff can be said to have departed the singularity earlier than the observable stuff. As far as we know, the unobservable stuff isn't fundamentally different than the stuff we can see... just that it's moving away from us too fast for its light (or its causality) to ever get back to us.
For your second question, we used to think it was the first type of expansion that you mentioned (and it still is partly), but at the vast distances from here to the most distant galaxies, it the second type, the expansion of spacetime itself, that is stretching (like the dots on the balloon). Prior to the discovery of the "accelerating expansion", a dominant theory was that the universe was expanding right now, but that gravity would eventually slow it down and eventually pull it all back together (the Big Crunch). But this "accelerating" aspect gives rise to Dark Energy, which is said to be the "force" pushing or fueling the acceleration (without further comment, because we don't what "it" actually is).
So let me answer a third question which you didn't ask, and which ties these two things together. How can something (like a distant galaxy) be moving away from us faster than the speed of light? It is true that nothing can travel through space faster than light, even a galaxy. Yet, it appears that some things are doing exactly that, and this is the reason that part of the universe is unobservable. Imagine that you have a track with cars moving at the speed limit of 100 km/h. As the cars move away from each other, you break the track between them and add 10 km (5%) more roadway. After 1 hour, the cars would be 200 km apart, plus the extra 10 km that you inserted, for a total of 210 km. We know that it's impossible for the cars to be more than 200 km apart if they obey the speed limit (which they did), but it appears that they did because of the extra added track.
In a similar way, space is expanding (like the balloon covered in dots). Things that are very close to each other won't really notice the expansion (dots that are touching each other will still be touching), but as you measure dots that are further apart, the expansion becomes exponentially more noticeable. As our cars from earlier get further apart, we can say that every hour we add another 10 km of roadway PER 200 that we already have (increase 5% per hour). So after 1 hour, we have 210 km of roadway between them, just as before. At the end of the 2nd hour, the cars have traveled another 100 km each, and we add another 5%, and the cars are now 430.5 km apart, or an extra 20.5 km added. This is more than double the amount we added the first time, even though the "rate" of expansion is still the same!
Let's say the cars keep driving at the same speed for a total of 15 hours (with 5% more roadway added between them each hour), and agree to turn around and drive home. Let's see how far apart they get... (You can skip the boring math to read how this phenomenon works in the real Universe)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 662.025 km. (that's 430.5 + 200 = 630.5, then x1.05 = 662.025)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 905.1262 km. (662.025 + 200 = 862.025, then x1.05 = 905.1262)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 1160.3825 km. (905.1262 + 200 = 1105.1262, then x1.05 = 1160.3825)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 1428.4016 km. (1160.3825 + 200 = 1360.3825, then x1.05 = 1428.4016)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 1709.8217 km. (1428.4016 + 200 = 1628.4016, then x1.05 = 1709.8217)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 2005.1328 km. (1709.8217 + 200 = 1909.8217, then x1.05 = 2005.1328)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 2315.3894 km. (2005.1328 + 200 = 2205.1328, then x1.05 = 2315.3894)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 2641.1589 km. (2315.3894 + 200 = 2515.3894, then x1.05 = 2641.1589)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 2983.2168 km. (2641.1589 + 200 = 2841.1589, then x1.05 = 2983.2168)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 3342.3776 km. (2983.2168 + 200 = 3183.2168, then x1.05 = 3342.3776)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 3719.4965 km. (3342.3776 + 200 = 3542.3776, then x1.05 = 3719.4965)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 4115.4713 km. (3719.4965 + 200 = 3919.4965, then x1.05 = 4115.4713)
After another hour and another 100 km driven by each car, we add 5% and end up with 4531.2449 km. (4115.4713 + 200 = 4315.4713, then x1.05 = 4531.2449)
So they've been driving for 15 hours and they're sitting 4531.2449 km apart. Now they turn around. How long will it be until they meet?
After another hour with cars driving closer to each other, we add 5% and end up with 4547.8071 km. (4531.2449 - 200 = 4331.2449, then x1.05 = 4547.8071)
After another hour with cars driving closer to each other, we add 5% and end up with 4565.1975 km. (4547.8071 - 200 = 4347.8071, then x1.05 = 4565.1975)
After another hour with cars driving closer to each other, we add 5% and end up with 4547.8071 km. (4565.1975 - 200 = 4365.1975, then x1.05 = 4583.4574)
Wait a second, what's going on here? The cars are driving toward each other, but they're still getting further apart! This is because there is already so much space between the cars that the rate of expansion is greater than the speed the cars can travel. In fact, they can drive forever and ever and they will never see each other again, ever. (note that if they had turned around 1 hour sooner, their combined velocity would be slightly more than the rate of expansion, so they would get home eventually, but it would take a really, really long time).
In the Universe, Hubble's Constant tells us the rate at which Dark Energy is causing the extra space to be inserted, which is about 73.8 km/sec/Mpc (our track was using 10 km/hr/200 km). If we run the numbers, we can figure out how far away things can get before the amount of space being added per second is more than the distance light can travel in the same second. Once an object (like a galaxy) moves out of that range, it becomes unobservable; we can only ever see the light it gave off before crossing that boundary.
The only thing we do know is that, if all of our theories and math are correct, the currently-unobservable Universe was once observable, and all started in the same singularity at the same time. The galaxies we can still observe moving away from us will continue to move faster and faster until they, too, become unobservable.
Hope this helps! Sorry for the long response.
@@sabinrawr Suffice it to say, i need to catch up on some episodes...I love this stuff.
However, considering your response: As an outside ovserver and If we rolled back time to what we call the beginning, theoretically speaking the light emitted from the true beginning would then be visible(at least in partial) allowing for an extension on the additional space-time age previously unaccounted for.
@@anthonycurtis4849 Agreed. I guess that's kinda what I meant by the unobservable becoming observable, or as we roll forward, currently-observable will become unobservable. At the moment, though, there is no reason to believe that the unobservable universe is any older than what we can observe.
A few years ago I asked the question that this episode brilliantly answers. Now, I have a follow-up: do we know if dark energy has remained the way it is since the beginning? If it hasn't, do we know when it "took over" and how would that influence the age calculation of the universe? Could our lack of understanding about dark matter and dark energy throw these calculations off? By how much?
That is a really good question, I hope they see it and give us an answer ! :)
I'm not an expert, but following this stuff is a hobby of mine so I'll answer to the best of my knowledge.
I'm pretty sure the dark energy situation had to be different at the time of cosmic inflation. The assumption is that it has stayed the same since then because there isn't really evidence to the contrary, but I wouldn't say we really know. Inflation is ultra early so anything before that doesn't really matter, but if dark energy has changed since then I think it could totally throw our off by estimates a lot. In fact non-constant dark energy is one possible estimate for recent discrepancies in calculation the Hubble constant. Although I don't actually know how popular that explanation is among experts.
Dark energy was not the dominant force early in the universe, gravity was. That’s why there was a slowing down of the rate of expansion billions of years ago. But as the universe expanded, the amount of dark energy grew until it overcame gravity as the dominant force, and that’s when the expansion rate started to accelerate again. He covered it in a video some time ago.
I need a shirt like that one.
Rewatching this over a year later because obviously and i still would love to be able to paint like the beautiful background there. Genuine reason i miss lockdown is not seeing this in newer videos.
Just wait for the day that everything we think we know now is chucked right out the galactic window.
Tarbosh D'Artagnan IV That May or May not happen when and if the James Webb telescope goes on line.
Like “scientists” would allow new evidence to change the “facts”
This speculation passed off as science is like a religion.
@@ctrockstar7168 LOL on a video that just gave the history of scientists allowing new evidence to change ideas.
Did you ever try to put that kitty into a box with a contraption that will kill it when a radioactive particle decays?
That's when they invented the microwave.they went on to use it for communication then on human's then food in cardboard boxes. Circle of life.
I like to think of the Internet in geological terms. One day someone will be able to look back and see this interesting layer in the upload dates where we met every RUclipsr’s cat.
But do we know if time always passed in the same pace?
@Yours Truly I was also wondering the same🤔
Ken Keller Speed of what? Light/causality? Doesn’t the experience of time depend on absolute speed of the observer?
Time always runs at the same pace for the ovsever at "his" exact place, that isn't the case for places somewhere else, who relative to you are under a diferent gravity and speed state than you. So realative to your time and space i.e spacetime everything will be seen as normal.
That to say we can see at the CMBR that the universe after infaltion and cooling down expanded at nearly the same pace. So if you would like to define a general conclusion you could say, that time expanded everywhere relatively equaly. BUT giving e.g. earths current distance, expansion and speed comparetivly to distant objects, our timeline is vastly streched, but if we where to teleport to that place, which must also stay static relative to our position, we would not enter past or future events of that place, but "present" events.
Also note that time isn't a static constant and also not a fixed point and Terms like "past, present and future" must always seen relative to the relationship between obsever and his/ her interactive relatinships with other spacetime events.
How could it not pass at one second per second?
Time always passes at the speed of time, which is dependent on the observer's velocity through space... which, of course, is a function of distance and time.
And that pain you're feeling just behind your left temple? That's time and velocity getting together to mock attempts to conceptualize the very mechanics of entanglement that make conceptualization possible.
The T-Shirt!
"Morty, there is literally EVERYTHING in space!"
The Universe. Best thing imagined happening ever since nothing not happened.
Nothing that lasts can withstand an infinite timeline passage except foreverimaginary everlasting Universe.
"Vesto Slipher", isn't that a Yu-gi-oh character?
Oh
I was looking for this comment.
That and Tycho Brahe are two of the greatest names ever
Yeah NASA is creative with the science fiction bs they're feeding you morons.
I'm so disappointed at the gullibility of 90% of you who fall for this imaginary nonsense which doesnt have a basis in reality.
Re-watch the video and play spot the science fiction.
Pay attention to the hilarious but smart integration of made up non verifiable data which is then related to something like a scientist, which in turn instils belief that it's real and believable science.
If you're thinking I'm wrong or if my statement illicits an emotional response then you're most likely not intelligent enough to see the deception.
If you do see it then well done and you're well on your way to see hundreds of other sneaky manipulative tactics used by NASA to promote science fiction bs.
Para phrasing feynman
Time is something that happens when nothing else does..
Also, time is the thing that keeps everything from happening all at once.
That idea stands in contrast to relativity.
literally speaking no cuz if nothing happens you cant measure time and itd be like time would be frozen
@@xXSchimpXx Which is utter bullshit since mass is energy AKA a quantity of something happening, and where is no mass there is no spacetime, so that there is neither frozen time nor any time at all, not even a space wherein such a thing could exist.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727
Feynman at the time was submerged deep into quantum electrodynamics..
Cracked me up when it was stated that it was only recently discovered that the universe had a beginning. That’s been known throughout human history.
Hilmar Zonneveld good grief. So I guess it’s only when you realize it that it’s a fact
Hilmar Zonneveld not getting into these silly debates. Goodbye
Can't wait till we get the age of the universe down to one hour precision :)
Scientists are already late on it having a beginning.
This is Russell Brand having never fallen off of the wagon.
Hi, could you address what has been referred to as "The Great Attractor", which I understood to reference our entire visible universe moving in unison TOWARD something unknown, but apparently so massive, that it's gravitational "pull" is sufficient to cause our entire visible/detectable universe to move at a detectable speed toward it. First, I heard of this years ago, but nothing since; and second, am I completely off base in my understanding of this? I'm an adult, and would welcome your corrections, even should they reveal me to be an idiot (or is "mentally challenged" the preferred term these days). Thank you, Frank Seiler, Esq.
Just look at the Wiki for Great Attractor ? It's the nexus of our local super-cluster. More dense areas of the Universe attract, and it's only on average that the Universe expands - hence why Andromeda is headed right for us, and then Triangulum thereafter. This produces galactic filaments when dark matter reigns, with supervoids between - when dark energy reins.
Interesting
(Southern accent) It’s simple, boy! The greata tractor is the one that gets the job done faster! *Spits In bucket*
Check out the Shapley Supercluster.
Our local galaxy group is NOT what I was refering to. I was referring to our ENTIRE VISIBLE/DETECTABLE universe map showing all visible universe moving toward something not within our detection range but for the gargantuan attraction motion.
My theory is the universe restarts itself, everything is expanding and it will reach a point where it stops and begins to contract, eventually forming a singularity resulting in another big bang
Would we ever be able to harness heat energy from quantum fluctuations? As the energy can never reach abosoulute zero, isn't there always energy there to harness from nothing?
Well there's two problems. The first is that we don't just need energy, we need an energy *gradient*. To have a fire you don't just need fuel, you need something to burn it. Specifically in this case we need a 'heat sink' that's lower energy than the fluctuations.
But this gets to the second problem, by definition those fluctuations are the lowest possible energy level. As you yourself note they can NEVER reach absolute zero so there's no lower energy 'sink' we can use to extract energy.
Well just for the record, Cephid variables were discovered in 1908 by Henrietta Swan and not Edwin Hobble.
SigmaSharp I was literally just thinking that I’m sure something to do with luminosity of stars and identifying that some “nebulas” were not inside our galaxy was actually developed by a woman who was a computer (when it was a profession) - including inventing the whole OBAFGKM (?) scale? I could be making that up and I’m so lazy I can’t be bothered checking.
They didn't claim Hubble discovered Cepheid variables, only that he located one in a galaxy he was observing and used it's pulsating rate to determine the actual brightness to calculate the redshift. 2:16
These are the still best videos on RUclips. Thanks for all the hard work errbody.
Thanks as always. You had an episode entitled "Crisis in Cosmology", where two methods provided different Hubble constants. They were off by over 10%. How then do you say that the age ( 1/hubble const) is exactly 13.8 BY.
Yeah he should have addressed that on a related note I would like to see whether the growing evidence for more asymmetry in peculiar velocities within the local universe than typically assumed might explain the discrepancy I would be willing to bet that will turn out to be the source of the discrepancy as a nonzero peculiar velocity in the local universe would naturally give a larger Hubble constant and younger age.
If memory serves 13.8 is is more or less the result of the CMB value for the Hubble constant so if the local universe values are off then the calculation should be safe from error
The fact that the best cosmological theory fails to explain 96% of observations, plus has serious inconsistencies in the last 4% and requires a lot of unknown physics to work, should give you some hints about its correctness.... I'd give it 2% chance of being correct, and that's being generous.
Because this is popular science, not real science. Popular science tends to ignore error bars. And anyway, 13.8 billion is not exact; it's only three significant figures.
@@Mosern1977 I think you are being a bit overly critical most of its flaws are fairly reasonable if looking to make minimal assumptions the largest problem seems to be the reluctance to test those assumptions. Dark matter is a perfectly reasonable assumption if you know that electromagnetism theoretically should only effect matter composed of fundamentally charged particles and there is already particles in the standard model which lack a fundamental charge and thus can not be seen. This is particularly true in light of how particles are merely persistent perturbations within fields in quantum field theory you can't observe a field that doesn't interact and any particle that doesn't interact electromagnetically would have no requirement to act by another force aside from gravity as disappointing as that may seem. This does involve the limits of experimental tests when things can't be observed but that is a separate matter of a philosophical nature.
Dark energy however is far more problematic as the way it was adopted appears to have involved far too much confirmation bias for objective science as the model has not been challenged sufficiently to be considered valid certainly not to the degree needed to award a Nobel prize. Inconsistencies are only a problem if the "theory" is not sufficiently tested with scientific rigor. Unknowns in science only mean we don't have the full answer the goal should always be to find a more complete theory that explains our current observations but expands beyond that to not only resolve unresolved problems but to offer new predictions about the universe.
Good question. There is disagreement between the expansion rate of the universe today, H_0, as derived from CMB measurements and as measured from nearby supernova data. The age of the universe though does not depend on H_0 alone. When you consider the full set of parameters this constrains the age calculation to near 13.8 Gyrs. I believe the higher values of H_0 some parameter sets allow for 13.6 Gyrs; so maybe not exactly 13.8 but perhaps PBS Spacetime is only considering the CMB data for age here. At this point that would be reasonable as CMB data allows you to calculate an age from a coherent set of data. The latest supernova measurements alone do not. Definitely worth discussion though.
Radu Negulescu? Weee, a fellow Romanian is supporting PBS Space Time!
The longer I watch, the less confident I am that astronomers have any clue about the age of the universe
All calculations are based on the current state of the universe and make many assumptions. Saying we know the age of the universe definitively is being unapologetically naive. Every once and awhile i forget how much this host likes to speak in absolutes and watch a video only to be reminded of the smugness. I can appreciate his explanation of how we arrived at our current understanding though.
don't watch anything about ships then. just like astronomy, ships are documented to become better and better as time goes. showing us all that engineers have 0 clue about ships
@@istvansipos9940 I'll watch whatever I feel like watching, thank you very much.
My comment isn't intended as some kind of argument against the whole of astronomy. I simply feel less confident about the age of the universe. I'm not going to abandon my favorite subject over it. That's just needlessly dramatic
I'm so glad I live in an age when scientists have moved passed all their mistakes and embarrassments so that I can enjoy a firmly established 13 billion year old universe, and you can take that to the bank!
Finally. And especially cosmologist, they have the track record to prove it.
Of course. Given the fact that cosmology is the most precise science, right after astrology.
I never realized our understanding had changed so much, so recently.
We are usually taught about the most modern understanding. But we're so rarely taught about how we got there, and how we built off of it.
In 1861, Louis Pasteur came up with germ theory, and in 1928 we discovered penicillin.
In 1954, we developed silicon transistors, and the first computers were the size of a room.
Einstein came up with special relativity and general relativity and e=mc2.
The universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old.
We know those things. But we don't know the whole picture.
Negative Energy is invited by the dark side using dark energy
It's so jarring when you get the "right answer" by different methods when the logic is that there shouldn't even a consensus between them.
"We are right but why!?"
Congratulations on 2 million Subscribers!
Universe is quite young, compared to how huge it is
BeyondWrittenWords and how much time is left until the end of it!
I've thought that at first a while back, until I heard it's only few billion years old. Thought it would be way more, I guess that just shows how fast the universe is expanding and/or I don't fully comprehend how many is 13.8 billion years is.
The curvature of the earth create an illusion of two parallel lines meeting each other at the horizon. Could there be a similar reason why the universe appears to converge to a single point while it may not really be the case?
The reason why we think that the universe seems to converge at a single point is because nearly every object outside of the galaxy appears to be moving away from us. This either means that we're literally sitting in the center of the universe, or the expansion of space time.
@@Mernom Well, if you fold a flat piece of paper in to a shape of a cone, would you still believe the paper has appeared out of a single point? Also, Andromeda is an exception for it is coming towards us. If our observable universe had many more such exceptions, would we still believe in a universal big bang?
The geometry of the observable universe is flat. Two parallel lines will remain parallel no matter how far they go.
@@Willaev Then how do you explain a flat universe originating out of a single point?
The hardest part for me to conceptualize is cosmic inflation - even more than the size of the universe it’s hard for me to comprehend it getting larger as there’s nothing outside it (not just the observable, but total universe). The CMB makes sense and is powerful evidence for a whole host of theories.
My calculations though show that the universe is exactly 5 days old.
its 6 days for God or 13.8 Billion yrs old for us
Allah says in the holy Quran
- We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, (50:38)
and also in chapter 41 , verse 10
And He placed on the earth firmly set mountains over its surface, and He blessed it and determined therein its [creatures'] sustenance in _four days_ without distinction - for [the information] of those who ask.
in these two verse Allah says that he created universe in 6 days and then he created earth on the 4th day , which is 2/3 of 6 days. also earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago , when the universe was about 2/3 of its present age.
if we divide the age of universe into 6 parts , than this 1 day would be equal to about 2.3 billion years , and when the universe was 4 days old The God created the earth ,thats is the universe's age is 9.2 billion years old (2.3×4=9.2) ....also
2.3 billion year old= 1st day
4.6 billion year old= 2nd day
6.9 billion year old= 3rd day
9.2 billion year old=4th day, earth is created
11.5 billion year old= 5th day
13.8 billion year old= 6th day , present.
The Quran exactly presents that the earth was formed (4.6 billion yrs ago)when the universe was
about 9.2 billion years .
“We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth” [Fussilat 41:53]ruclips.net/video/fmVUsTk9EtU/видео.html
@@astrognosis I doubt it
Creationist christians would disagree with this dating method. You need to date it by genealogies in the Jewish Bible according to James Ussher.
Who needs science to figure this stuff out when we've got ancient religious texts.
Not the dating method in itself, rather the errors that go ignored when these estimates are made. But of course, that is why Evolutionists always explain things in a language that consists primarily of the words; 'Probably' and 'Most-likely'. That way they can change their theories the moment things don't make sense (which happens quite freaquently).
Vesto Slipher is definitely a galactic bounty hunter and you can't tell me otherwise
A devoted follower of the Dark Lord, member of house Slithering, voted most likely to stab you in the back.
Seriously though not a nice guy. Look him up.
Who remembers when it was thought to be over 14 billion years not very long ago.
that crossed my mind
I know, right? Feels like 0.2 billion years ago.
Depends on the data you go by, references range from 13.8 to about 22 billion years.
Still might be... though the only thing we can tell is that the space itself that we exist in is 13.8 billion years old. But with the expansion rate being more variable than we expected, unexplainable “Dipole Repeller” and galaxies on a different flow pattern in the dark flow that might not exactly be the full truth...
It actually makes me wonder if there is a chance that the “big bang...” might not be singular but very much plural, multiple bangs.
I don't - can you link any half-decent reputable source?
We have gotten better and more accurate data over time, with quite small error-margins in the past 20 years where the estimated age effectively didn't change.
Or do you want to go as far as now pulling up the strawmen called media that just report on the numbers, rounding them and ignoring the margins? Or simplifications for easy to udnerstand explanations or balbark figures for rough estimations?
How can you say "precisely" when it is more accurately "our best prediction with modern science"
Dark Energy. Dark Matter.... Show yourselves!
Those dark things will evaporate as soon as the correct models are figured out. Their existence is proof that we've got major issues in our current understanding.
:O
If they did then they wouldn't be dark anymore did they?
@@Mosern1977 You are spot on! Dark Energy/Matter are merely placeholder for the things we don't yet understand.
I wish I could like more than once. This deserves a like for the content, for the Q&A and, of course for Simone. gorgeous kitty!
If the universe is so big then why won't it fight me?
Can you guys do an episode on Superluminal communication or faster than light communication? Real time interplanetary communication? Through worm holes or quantum entanglement or quantum locality?
Your do such an amazing job. Thank you
Right click on The Universe, click on properties. Should be able to see everything. Careful not to click on the reset button.
F O R M A T D I S K
Çok faydalı bilgiler var. Teşekkür ediyorum size
~ 13:30 - A.k.a. "crisis in cosmology" - confidence intervals of those different methods don't overlap. But I am sure you made an episode on thet, too, in the meantime.
1:44 Arguing about faint fuzzy patches. Are they small and near? Or large and far away?
Father Ted be like: "Okay, one last time. These are small. But the ones out there, are far away"
Glad to hear you talk about Dr. Sandage, my distant cousin.
as long as there is a change, there is no endlessness
If the universe is 18 billion years old, we all hit the jackpot being alive now!
"Vesto Slypher". . .sounds like what you might name your wizard in D&D
.
.
.
.
.
or a Harry Potter villain
.
.
That zoom in to the stars in Andromeda, combined with thinking about the distances between any of those stars, makes me feel so, so, small. I don't think I can handle considering that that ratio doesn't begin to cover my actual size in comparison to the universe. Am I even equivalent to a quark in all of this? A self-aware quark, thinking itself special?
And then 11:39 came..
I can't help thinking that a story that points out that previous theories were miscalculated or wrong is going to mean in 100 years from now people will be saying "People used to believe in the Big Bang until we discovered this..."