The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion. Visualize it like this. | Michelle Thaller | Big Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion. Visualize it like this.
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewV...
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where exactly did the Big Bang happen? Well, nowhere-and everywhere. As NASA's Michelle Thaller explains, thinking of the origins of our universe as an explosion with a central hub is misleading.
"The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter, it was an expansion of space itself," she says. We don't know how big the universe is, but the general consensus is that there is no edge to the universe, and no center either.
To visualize the Big Bang accurately, imagine an inflated balloon and pay attention just to the surface of it - "Pretend that there's no such thing as inside or outside of the balloon, just the two-dimensional surface of the rubber." We are living on the surface of that balloon, only able to shine a light in one direction or the other. All of it is expanding and every part of it is filled with galaxies-no matter where you are in the universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE THALLER:
Dr. Michelle Thaller is an astronomer who studies binary stars and the life cycles of stars. She is Assistant Director of Science Communication at NASA. She went to college at Harvard University, completed a post-doctoral research fellowship at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Calif. then started working for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Spitzer Space Telescope. After a hugely successful mission, she moved on to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), in the Washington D.C. area. In her off-hours often puts on about 30lbs of Elizabethan garb and performs intricate Renaissance dances. For more information, visit NASA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
MICHELLE THALLER: Elissa, you have asked one of the best questions in all of astronomy: The Big Bang was the start of our universe so where was the locale? Where did the Big Bang actually happen? And what I really love about this question is it gives me a chance to talk about some of the misperceptions we have about the Big Bang. And when I hear the term 'Big Bang' that implies an explosion. And we all know how explosions work from our experience: things actually fly out from a common center. And one of the things is scientists really don't like describing the Big Bang as an explosion at all, that sort of sets you up in the wrong direction right away because you can imagine that there are galaxies all flying apart away from each other, away from a common center, and flying out into empty space. And the universe we observe is absolutely nothing like that. For example, the whole volume of the universe that we can see with the Hubble Space Telescope - we can see to a distance of nearly 13 billion light years - all of that volume is filled with galaxies. There is no empty center to the universe. And the other thing that we don't observe and we're pretty sure that nobody else ever could either is being on the edge of that, being on a galaxy right on the edge of expansion and seeing all of the galaxies in one direction because you're looking inside and nothing but empty space on the outside. Space never looks like that. All around us we see galaxies; the universe is filled with them.
So what's really going on here? And this really gets at the crux of what the Big Bang was. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter, it was an expansion of space itself. So that simply means that any amount of space in the universe is expanding and everything is getting farther away from everything else. I know that's very hard to visualize. Some people talk about blowing up a balloon and this always, to me, can put you in the wrong direction because they say 'Ah-ha! A balloon has an empty center, everything expands away from it.' What they haven't told you is you need to pay attention just to the surface of the balloon. Pretend that there's no such thing as inside or outside of the balloon, just the two-dimensional surface of the rubber. As you blow into it, that expands in every direction. If you were to draw little points on the surface of the balloon, every little point would start getting farther away from every other little point. But if you were a two-dimensional creature that could only travel on the surface of the balloon, you could only shine a light, you couldn't possibly even know about what's up or what's down, if you were completely two-dimensional, you would see every point expanding away from every other point but there would be no empty center...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
But has the expansion of space itself a direction in relation to each other point in space- time, or at least, as far we are able to see? And why would there be no empty center? Perhaps we only see just a little bit of space, like a mile on the surface of the globe? And if there is expansion, can we measure a direction of the expanding space itself, perhaps in four dimensions or more?
Does this mean that everything is is brown center of the universe? And does the gravity time dilation between a star and surrounding space account for expansion?
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
.
.
@@LaughingSeraphim🐪
@@facefact3737🐪
Wow. Mind blown! ..err, I mean,, expanded
ba dum tss
Noice!
Noice garry
..? ,,? holy shit
Lol gg
This raises more questions than it answers
That's kinda how science works lol
@@eliad6543 No solutions and answer must more questions? Errrr.
Maybe they are doing it wrong.
@@doomslayer5191 Perhaps. But one could argue that the reason your able to express that thought via the internet proves it's working? Hell, the simple fact that there's new questions to ask means old ones have been answered/addressed right?
Exactly. I came here for answers and now I just have more questions.
I'm glad about that!
Why don't physicist change the name? For example to the simple "space expansion theory"
i remember Neil Degrasse Tyson saying in one of the Wired videos or summat that the names of quarks are placeholder names until they have clearer definitions of such names. could be the same with this im fairly certain science has changed many names in the past.
Cosmic inflation is the name that already exists to describe the faster-than-light expansion of space. The Big Bang refers to the moment the universe appeared.
Because it's catchy, obviously. And let me just tell you, it's an uphill battle trying to change that. Even the guy credited with coining it used the frase to mock the idea of an expanding universe,.
If they do that...im going to waste 3 bowls of generic cereal
Fred Hoyle 🔭
She's the female scientist version of Dave Mustaine
Ah goddamit. Can't unsee it now.
Ffffuuuuuuuu.....!
BROTHER WILL KILL BROTHER, SPILLING BLOOD ACROSS THE LAAAAAND, KILLING FOR RELIGION, SOMETHIN I DONT UNDERSTAAAND
i knew someone would have written this, only reason i clicked :)
Daaayyymn, I was thinking that she looks like Stiflers mom
Another analogy I've heard is raisin bread expanding (from yeast and from baking), the raisins getting further from each other although they are not moving through the dough. The dough is expanding.
Sure that works. Another analogy is two objects connected by a chain. Then as new links are added to the chain the two objects move farther apart.
An expanding infinity is an oxymoron.
@Sam Armstrong lol. i love your passion here
@Sam Armstrong hell yeah! i'm from georgia, usa with some scottish blood and we do the same
@Sam Armstrong If you've got nothing intelligent to say, why do you even bother commenting? Is it just to get attention? Pathetic!
Michelle has that Linda Hamilton from the first Terminator vibe. I love it.
Its the fluffy hair😆
I'm in a club called Tech Noir 😂
hahaha that's funny but you are correct:)
Oddly I love the way she talks.
How can you love it. its fukcing annoying
Like a crazy doll.
@@nuric91 47 vs 2 so far
@@ederm2111 that is either Sarcasm or americans just Talk that annoying way
Nuric91 I can give you my opinion, is not really the way she talks but how she explains, the way she makes pauses, you can sense that she has a lot on her head trying to make it simple, I feel identified with her.
This video makes me doubt even if I know what a space is anymore
I think all people and scientists like to think they know...
"Welcome to flatearth, take a seat"
@Zimmit's Fabulous Wonder Hoagies 😂😂🤣
@ You only used two dots.
@Zimmit's Fabulous Wonder Hoagies u r*
It hasn’t exploded yet, the rubber hasn’t torn yet
Edit: that’s what she said
Awesome comment! ha ha.
Im so glad space is expanding.
I live in a room 3 x 4 meters.
good one
3:22 "... that Rubber is just getting bigger ..." ... I demonstrated that to my wife last night .. now she understands!!
Michelle is one of NASA’s greatest treasures. The idea of the universe being the 3D surface of a 4D sphere is mind blowing
We need more women like Michelle Thaller! You have a fantastic, down to earth way of explaining complex matters in a very understandable way.
See, this is a true expert. No arrogance, no over complicated terms where not needed.
Thank you!
*people. Don't be a sexist piece of shit.
@Battenkill Rambler Nobody is "MATERIAL" for anything, man.
She is probably not only smarter than you (and me combined), but also more experienced in most fields of life.
AND she most likely is smart enough not judge YOU on your looks.
@Stefan Urban Yeah, all women parrot down what other men tell them, while all male scientists always start from zero in their field. With real men, there is no such thing as citing another scientist. It is unmanly.
I bet you are still trying to find out Pythagoras's Theorem all by yourself.
But you have mastered writing already.
Congratulation! :-D
Before, I had some clue (allbeit an incorrect one) about the Big Bang, now I have none
Welcome to physics.
@@JorgetePanete Thanks
Same
@@Blurrybob That's actually a good thing.
I do. God my man.
Her enthusiasm for the topic is palpable 💟
She's fantastic and I love the way she describes things. She really wants to share her knowledge and it gives her great pleasure to do this.
Thank you Michelle for such a realistic, common sense answer to the Big Bang theory.
Key word theory
@@earthsgeocentricimmovablef4650 it's not a hypothesis, though, like Divine Creation
@@ateginadeusaportuguesadano458 well divine creation has become more of a theory at this point
@@alexthompson8977 No, it hasn't. Zero evidences.
@@ateginadeusaportuguesadano458 actually it does. Have even stopped to look what they are saying first?
1. It accepts, mutation, speciation, and natural selection so all the modern proofs of evolution fit with it nicely
2. Since no new novel info has been observed to be produced then the variablilty of animals is limited. Hence they invoke the created kinds
3. Because of irrecrudibly complex structures(like the eye and metamorphosis) evolution fails those but they fit nicely with the creation model.
You should check it out
There is one simple answer. WE DON'T KNOW. that's it. Simple.
larry tengco agreed. Scientists have big egos and rush things without finding the solution to the big questions. Im not even religious and i believe in a god, but how tf did the big bang start laws n physics
@@Adayintherain please dude. You don't know scientists. You're literally dismissing years and years of research all because someone doesn't have the information 100%. Why can't "we don't know" mean "we have a understanding but it's not finished being evaluated for all it may encompass"? Why must it be "you don't know therefore you don't know"?
There is one simple answer. You are agnostic, and would love to remain ignorant
Simple..we just don't like someone in control ( Creator/god ) 😂
Yeah actually we know for a fact
That explanation raises more questions than it answers, expanding the mysteries directions analogous to confusion.
That's science for you. Each time that you answer a question, at least 2 others come to life.
As Einstein said, as our circle of knowledge grows, so does the circumference of darkness around it
Considering how this is the first time I heard this explanation makes me doubt scientists even more.
I just watched a big think ad before watching a big think video.
#Doublepenetration
Can't go wrong with some good ol' fashioned DP.
I love you Dave Mustaine
This is an eye opening video. Some people believe in science as the truth in life but actually we can misinterpret scientific research and thus getting a wrong conclusion.
The irony is, some people consider that 'incorrect interpretation' as the truth for their life.
Make sure you know what you believe in is correct, do you really have that conviction, or is it just because someone / something tells you so?
No one can know what's correct.... there is no proof of any reason, it just is. So dont believe in anything anyone tells you is the truth about it all.
I love these - each time I listen to what Michelle Thaller or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku speak, I sit back and try to absorb the content of their lectures and it consistently opens my mind to higher thinking. They are brilliant. Thank you!
If the universe turns out to be infinite, then it defeats the purppse of it expanding as it has nothing to expand on since it is already infinite. That would mean it might just be reshuffling itself then
actually that's not true. An infinite universe can expand within itself infinitely. It's a hard concept to grasp, but it works. In this case the big bang wasn't a singularity, but instead a very hot compressed state of the universe of pure energy that expanded into a cooler less compressed state that would allow the existence of matter. What allows this logic to work is that infinity doesn't have any boundaries.
This might be good example. Think of a parabola. Its beginning and end steer towards a fix end. However, they never reach it despite gerting closer and closer.
Gabriel Gustavson but at that point it's all speculation as it "can" expand infinitely within itself but who knows
@@Acepilot12345 Yeah it's speculation, but when saying the universe is infinite, speculation is the best we can do
Gabriel Gustavson Totally disagree. Expansion of infinities only work in (abstract) mathematics. In physical space, infinity doesn’t actually exist. Only when you mathematise it.
As for the Big Bang, do you mean to say that the universe was always infinite? Or that it was finite and later became infinite? The latter is not logical. The former contradicts the Big Bang theory. Clearly, space itself was of a small volume (which means it had limits) and became bigger and bigger (and still has limits). All spaces and objects have volume, and volume has extension. Extension has a definite number (measurement). There is no such thing as an infinite square or an infinite triangle, for example, unless it’s some kind of mathematical abstraction.
Hi Michelle,
How is it that the fabric of spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light in the earliest moments after the big bang?
-Mickey
Maybe negative mass?
Off the top of my head, can't it be the initial momentum of the explosion?
Well, there is nothing saying that space cannot expand faster than light, just nothing moving THROUGH space can.
Inflation
Space is expanding faster than light as we speak and is also accelerating as well. The constant speed of light is through a vacuum in empty space but space itself is expanding faster than the light within it can reach it's edge, assuming there is one.
This literally makes even less sense. It's so difficult to wrap my head around this concept haha
I am happy to see scientists finally coming around to see that the beginning was an expansion. The problem with the balloon analogy is that we do not live in a 2D space. Space has 4 dimensions not 3. Dimensions are determined by a given point and plane of reference. Even a 2 dimensional plane has a center, even a 2D spherical plane, relative to its overall expanse. But space has height and depth from a given point and plane of reference. Logically space overall has a center. We just have not determined nor observed it, yet. For anything that is infinite in size does not and cannot expand, otherwise it would not be infinite. Space is most definitely, vast but, finite in size.
If you do not know if space is finite or infinite how can you be sure that it has no center? Also, how can you assume it is empty, even if it does have one? That is a dogmatic statement, and an unobserved, untested theory. It would be safer to say, we do not yet know if there is a center of space.
With respect to Ms Thaller, this is 4 minutes of saying, we as humanity, have no clue. Nobody knows what the universe is expanding into. This is all a theory based on light shift, that presumes expanding, that presumes singularity, etc.
The next question is, if the universe is experiencing three-dimensionally then how do physicists and astronomers explain why galaxies collide?
Wouldn't galaxies on a collision course with each other be fighting that expansion?
Gravity
@@janfrys2004
If space is moving farther apart faster than things are moving together then they would never collide.
@@myperspective5091 but space started from small size so gravity was much bigger in beginning and it change course of a lot of galaxies - that's why they are colliding, also you can watch hundred videos on RUclips about space expansion and you will find out that galaxies farther from our moving faster then galaxies closer to us
1. Its not an explosion
2. It happen everywhere
3. Imagine of a group of people walking apart from each other instead of just one person walk and other stay still. Imagine from pebble a to b are 2cm and b to c are also 2 cm. The distant would increas both from a to b and b to c
But we have scientist suggest it's an explosion before Expansion.
And how do you not expand from a central location?
Elissa: "Where did the Big Bang Happen?"
Big Think: "Great question but I'm going to ask myself a different question and answer that instead".
deepvybes This video answered the question though?
Thanx for the explanation. Now I am even more confused 😒
I think it was one of the early guys who developed this theory who used the metaphor of raisin bread dough with the dough being space and the raisins galaxies. It is much easier to visualize.....
Not sure about the raisin bread, but Alan Guth?
space is expanding at every point, doesn't that cancel out. Doesn't it mean we all and everything has grown bigger and fatter but since everything is doing the same we don't see the difference ? Aren't we moving away at the same rate? Why do we see a difference? And since atoms & particles are not increasing isn't the space between molecules is increasing? What am i misunderstanding? I'm so confused since I've known this thing. Someone please enlighten me?
Not all space is expanding. The space in atoms, molecules etc isn't. The other force, electrostatic, are far stronger than the expansion forces at those scales. Our solar system isn't expanding, the gravitational forces are stronger than the expansion on this scale. Same with our galaxy. Clusters of galaxies are also gravitationally bound so don't experience expansion between them. It is only very large voids in the universe that experience the expansion. These are numerous and distributed sort of evenly throughout the Universe so everything between is also carried along with thei expansion.
@@borisjohnson1944 thank you.
The following is from a career in aerospace engineering and a personal hobby, which means it's still a guess, but I have read a lot. If we stick with her balloon analogy, space is the surface of the balloon, and galaxies and planets and people and atoms are “locations” on the surface (not “ink dots” which would grow larger with the balloon surface). In this analogy, nothing cancels out because the balloon continually expands and all locations on the surface continually get farther away from each other.
Locations on the surface of an expanding balloon do not move away from each other at the same rate. Imagine three locations in a line anywhere on the surface. As the surface expands, the outer two locations would move away from the middle location and appear to remain on the same line. After some time, a look along the line from either end will show that the locations are no longer on the same line, demonstrating that these three locations are moving away from each other at different rates (If the balloon was a perfect sphere and the line drawn exactly on the “equator” or exactly perpendicular to the equator, the locations would move away at the same rate. So by using an imperfect sphere for our analogy, we are introducing an assumption into our analogy which I’m choosing to ignore right now.).
There is a real-life situation that proves that galaxies do not move away from us at the same rate. When astronomers look at a specific star, the color of the light they see is compared to the predicted color, and if the color is a little more red than predicted, that means that the star is moving away from us at some angle. This is called the Red Shift, and is used (along with other data which I do not understand) to estimate how far away that star is.
Mr. Johnson’s argument touches on another astrophysics question, and that is whether the universe as a whole will continue to expand forever, or whether there is enough mass of stars and planets that the expansion will slow and eventually start contracting due to gravity. I don’t fully understand this either, but most scientists believe that there is not enough mass for gravity to pull the universe back. There would have to be much more mass for the universe to contract, and many scientists are looking for that mass in the form of Dark Matter, so called because as of now, nobody can see any such matter. But for anyone to even entertain such an issue, it would mean that all matter that we can see including galaxies and planets are in fact expanding, making Mr. Johnson’s theory inconsistent with all the other theories.
Space is expanding but not objects in space. Imagine an X, Y grid, Fill in a small square around the 1, 1 point. Now, do not change the size of the square but move it to 2, 2 label it as the new 1, 1 and relabel all the coordinates and erase the old lines. At this point, the space has doubled, everything has moved but the things themselves have stayed the same. Check out the animation at the end of this video: ruclips.net/video/XBr4GkRnY04/видео.html The whole video is pretty good.
Erin Barnette's older sister
Michelle has to be one of the best astronmers I seen break down physics to laymen terms with such eases
But many scientists in science shows say all of the universe was born from a space smaller than an atom 🤔
they say...but then again.....if there was no space or time before the big bang, how can you measure it was smaller then an atom? Can be also thruth that it is bigger then the universe....because there was no space, no matter, no universe....so where do you have an atom to compare it with?????????????
The other analogy that's been made which does incorporate the third dimension is baking a loaf of raisin bread. Imagine the raisins are the galaxies. Before the loaf has risen, the raw dough fits in the palm of your hand and the raisins are all packed closely together. As it rises, the dough increases in volume and the raisins start moving apart from one another in all directions. Bake the dough and it will expand even further, the raisins moving even further away from one another.
There is no "center" to the loaf from the perspective of an individual raisin; the dough it expanding all around it and the other raisins are all being carried by this expanding dough away from that individual raisin in all directions. This is the scenario from the perspective of any raisin you choose inside the dough.
If you still insist on thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion, then divest yourself of the illusion that the known universe is accelerating away from a central point on the very bleeding edge of the blast wave of the explosion. Instead, imagine it as the entire universe is contained within the volume of the explosion or, rather, IS the volume of the explosion. As that explosive sphere expands in all directions, so, too, does the volume of the universe and everything contained within it expand in all directions.
The hardest part, perhaps, is wrapping one's head around the concept that space isn't an empty vacuum into which the universe is expanding. It's not an empty stage on which the galaxies dance. It isn't something apart from the universe. Space _itself_ is expanding. It's hard to find a word to use which won't muddy the waters due to preconceived connotations, but space itself is material, real, present.
Space - outer space - isn't just absence of matter and energy. Space IS rather than IS NOT. It has parameters, many of which we don't yet have the means to measure and quantify. But we know enough to have learned that space isn't nothingness. And then the real mind bender is coming to the realization that space - whatever it is - is itself expanding along with everything in it.
Now for the real sobering part. _Everything_ is expanding. It's not just static galaxies accelerating away from one another, it's E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. The space between the sub-atomic particles that make up every atom in the universe is expanding, too. Not to worry; it will be trillions of years before the expansion becomes so great that atoms will lose cohesion. But it illustrates the point that space - everywhere - is expanding at all scales from the cosmic to the sub-atomic.
The 2d surface balloon analogy helps me visualize the expansion of space...but it also implies that space wraps round so that you eventually get back to where you started from if you travel in a straight line...I'm curious, do scientists believe this to be a possibility?
Got it.
We have to burn rubber to reverse the effects of the expansion
I knew there was no Heat Death. The balloon can't die from heat. Call it a Big Deflation then.
Watching before my astronomy class tonight! Thanks for the awesome video!
My wife can never discover I have a crush on Michelle for a decade or so now.... LOl....
@@_seventh_son You sure seems to be very imaginative about women cheating on their lovers.
This humbles me. I'm always thinking about my life. How to expand my business. Relationships. While the multiverse inconceivably living as well. I'm just a an ant to the universe. It humbles me
I read recently that the universe Is actually expanding faster than we thought and thus making the universe younger than previously found, but what does this mean now that there are stars older than the universe, and this really doesn't help black hole becoming their enormous sizes in even shorter periods of time.
Mute the video and play background music : voilla you got how to dance in party tutorial video
lmao
I still don't get it. It was stated that The Big Bang was the start of the universe. A rapid expansion from a singularity. Then there must be a starting point (the centre where the singularity was). But this video explains that everything expands and getting further from everything else, and that there's no centre of the universe.
@@SammySlamma92 Hi thanks for trying to explain. I appreciate it very much. Im trying hard to understand your explanations. However, I still need to ask (and challenge) (it doesn't mean I disagree, because Im uncertain of all this as well). Ok here we go:
You said: "if 1 particle flies 10 units to the left, the second flies 12 units down, the third flies 16 units west, then releases a 4th particle 7 units up, so on and so on, ultimately there is no centre point between those particles".
If there was no centre point where it all started, how did you say "1 particle flies 10 units to the left". That sentence alone meaning you already defined a starting point in (X,Y,Z) as (0,0,0), so that you can say the 1 particle flies 10 units to the left. Because if not, then you cannot say its 10 units to the left, to the left of what? From (0,0,0), right?
If you think the centre of the ocean, of course there's none. Because the ocean was not shapred from singularity, it does not expand in all directions, the ocean is just a big size.. say.. a cup of coffee. You cannot use that analogy for the universe.
Ok nuff from me for now, your turn.
@@SammySlamma92 Yeah I understand the 100 starting people in football field analogy. But that means there were no singularity, but or perhaps you are saying there were multiple singularities, that I still do not get. If there are multiple singularities, say 1 millions, then perhaps we cannot call them singularity at all. Let me quote from phys-org-what is the big bang theory, 3rd paragraph: "In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began".
I do not mean to challenge you. You got the point and your explanation is also logical that there were multiple singularities that expanded in random directions. But that's written on phys-org, as well as on wikipedia about big bang, that all started from 1 single point, 1 single infinite density/mass, hence we can define that position as (0,0,0) right? I still don't understand why that contradicts what is said in this video.
Michelle thaller is brilliant. I love videos with her.
2:37 me trying to dance
Space itself is always expanding but what about the matter of space? Where did it come from?
sweiland75 There is no space time matter. It's all within!
Space is not matter, it's the arena where everything takes place. It's spacetime!
And Matter can loosely be described as interchangeable with energy. Matter is the measurement of varying energy potentials.
Read into the Higgs Boson field
I've never heard anyone except a physicist say "☝️Ah Ha!"
Probably because you're 11.
@@morpheus6749 Well that took a quick dark turn
@@deluxeassortment ah ha
If pphysicists keep saying that once long ago everything in the universe was a condense point ..
Then people will still thinking about an explosion.
Felhek Lehrian
But actually it was.
The matter we can and can’t observe in the universe right now has always been there and before the Big Bang or right after it space was almost non existent (singularity) or very small, hence it was quite condensed (great mass divided by small space equals enormous density).
That’s why the theory is often times misunderstood.
Because it’s logical (based on our everyday experience) that if the universe expands due to the Big Bang the matter would be accelerated away from the center of the explosion (as in bombs, Super novae...), but it’s not the matter that was accelerated, but space itself (as it has been mentioned in the video), so you have to imagine the balloon with thousands of dark spots all over it (condensed matter), that is inflated so the matter is distributed on a larger surface (/space) over time.
@@hinata5736 but do we also have to believe that inside the balloon there are more spots?
Because the balloon itself doesn't clarify the event without mention the area inside the balloon.
@@hinata5736 according with the big bang theory, no matter where you are, everything seems to be moving away from you.
Like if you were the center of everything .
Felhek Lehrian
I don’t really understand what you mean by “do we have to believe that there are spots on the inside of the balloon”...
The balloon is an analogy and it’s just the surface that is important to us.
Imagine there would be 5 spots on it that don’t represent plane/unspecific matter, but single atoms instead, so you’ve got a universe that consists of only 5 atoms.
If you now inflate the balloon, the surface area will increase (space expands), but you’ll always be left with exactly 5 atoms, since matter can’t be destroyed nor created.
The tricky part about it is, that you can’t imagine it as a regular explosion, where the matter is accelerated away from the center, because space itself is growing everywhere simultaneously, which is why the distance between all five atoms is getting bigger.
It’s as if you literally put “new space” in between those atoms or as if you inflate a balloon and would analyse the relativity of the spots to one another (you really have to think about the balloon and how the surface and spots would behave, if you inflated it).
And there you’re right it would look like you’d be in the center and everything would be moving away from you, but it doesn’t matter where you’re standing, it would always look like this, because space between the atoms or regular objects and you will always be growing, so you could say that everywhere is the center, but because this would be a useless definition/nonsense, we say there is just no center at all.
@@hinata5736 matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
What about space/time?
That's curious for me.
Space indeed can be created or destroyed.
But, does it exist without matter/energy?
But...we can see galaxies and stars with red shifts and others with blue shifts. If I understand it right, this means red shift objects are approaching us, and blue shift objects are receding from us...and we understand the stars and galaxies collide, so some are approaching and others are receding. If every point in the universe is expanding away from everything else, how can they collide?
VZ_ 342 they collide because the force of gravity between those galaxies and stars is enough to overcome the rate of expansion of the space so they attract each other. Although the further you are from something the faster it is receding from you and it’s those galaxies gravitational force that will never overcome the expansion of the universe.
Red and blue are just the opposite.
The problem with that explanation is that without an initial reference point, or size reference; expansion, growth, etc is irrelevant. It could just as easily be said that the universe stayed the same size but its contents shrunk/are shrinking. More like a singularity becoming more singular... exactly what you'd expect from a singularity with the introduction of time.
Hi Michelle just want to say I have watched many of your videos and the way you explain things really allows me to understand the nature behind it. RUclips is really privileged to have you.
Wow, Dave Mustaine is pretty smart.
What a asshole.. Michelle is a beautiful intelligent woman..who looks nothing like Dave Mustaine...She deserves nothing but respect from you.
Charles M An inane comment but not necessarily disrespectful, quite unlike your comment which was blatantly so. Get over yourself.
The game devs simply increase the draw distance as the players improve their systems.
Much of Cosmology is inherently hard to grasp. We humans have evolved essentially as two dimensional beings glued, by gravity, to the surface of the earth. The thought of satellites and space craft tearing through the hard vacuum of space at 10,000 mph offends my poor lizard brain! The thought that everything, 13 billion years ago occupied a single point in space-time, a _singularity,_ is absolutely astonishing. I can only trust that you scientists know what you are doing.
You realize that that is all faith based stuff right? Dark matter,dark energy etc. Is described as being unobservable and hypotheitcal( meaning they haven't confirmed it yet) but somehow they treat it like fact. I mean evolution has got some problems of it's own
@Herbal Shaman
1."Unknown" "omnipresent" I don't know man sounds like your just describing some supreme being to me.
2. What would cause such an inflation and can it be tested?
3. The real question is...where did all this stuff come from? I mean the big bang is the beginning of everything. If there was nothing before then there would be nothing to cause this expansion. Sorry but either a God created the everything or matter and energy existed forever forming and destroying universes for eternity Those are the only 2 logic options
@Herbal Shaman
1. But how did it break such a thresh hold? There is still no method to prove it can
2. Yeah I agree. And the big bang can even be used as an arguement for God. But the current theory isn' working
@Papple Fag ok then.
The bible knew that pleadies was bound and orion's belt was loosening way before the first telescope was built. It new that springs were under the sea before people could find them. Now tell me what other way than God could they get that info if technologg back then didn't allow it?
@@alexthompson8977 thank you, sir.
I get the idea of space itself 'stretching' in every direction leading to the universe we see now expanding.... but I don't understand how this model can lead to a universe that scientists/cosmologists describe as flat. How can this be if it has been stretched in all 3D directions? And also when we look with telescopes there are galaxies in each of these directions for as far as we can see?
Also, if we reverse this stretching of space and get a shrinking of space, are we shrinking everything within space? If so would it not just shrink even the smallest particles? Atoms, subatomic particles etc. so that theoretically all the universe would still be functional, just at an infinitely small (to us) scale.
I came here looking for a visual representation of the shape of this 'flat' universe and I haven't found a satisfying one. If anyone has come across one I would appreciate a link.
Thing of the universe as a XY plane, that distances double after T years.
If a point is at (1,2) at t=0 then, at t=T the point will be at (2,4)
Which raises the question, I wonder how large the “sheet” was BEFORE it started expanding? And if the universe has a snapping point? Like once it’s reached it’s maximum stretch, would it snap?
i could liten to her all day, every time she has been on here its been a good video. atleast to my memory.
Michelle is beautiful and I could listen to her talk all day.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I came here for the thumbnail
And YOU DID TOO
Wow! That's great poetry. 😬
I want this woman as my teacher. She talks with so much passion and explain things very well..
She really didn't answer the question. If you reverse time, isn't everything collapsing to a point?
The observable universe has a radius of about 46 billion light years. If you were to teleport to that edge of Earth's observable universe, you would see the exact same evidence of Big Bang expansion, and if you teleported out another 46 billion light years, you'd see it again. Our observable universe presumably used to fit in a Planck volume, and now it forms a sphere 92 billion light years in diameter, but the same is true for every point, including those within and even outside of our sphere. If you insisted on an expansionist analogy, growing soap bubbles might be better.
shane stewart Sorry for the confusion. We can see 46 billion light years in any direction, but a planet on the edge of that sphere can see the exact same thing - 46 billion light years in any direction. There is no center of the universe, because every point looks like the center of the universe, just as every point on the surface of earth looks like the center of what it can see.
@shane stewart Well, if space is truly infinite then this becomes a non-issue. For example, in the mathematical sample of a hotel with infinite rooms, all occupied, you can double occupancy without expanding the hotel, by moving every other occupant. In effect, we can think of space doing this.
shane stewart I’ll live dangerously and use an equation. For what values of x does 2x=x? 0 and infinity. For x=x+1 only infinity works. The mathematics of infinities are weird and math only started dealing with them in the late 1800’s. It’s okay to find them confusing.
This sounds a lot like steady state theory
What a rapturous mystery to ponder, the existence of such a wonderfully impossible place.
Maybe you missed the clear explanation. Or the fact that it's clearly not impossible.
@@morpheus6749 where did the space, time and matter come from that 13.8 billion yrs ago just randomly started expanding? Where did the physicals laws governing the unfolding of this process come from? Before the universe expanded was there an infinite nothingness, and was it empty or full? If empty, isn't it a kind of space? If full, full of what? If neither, how can there be expansion? Try blowing up a balloon without any space for it to expand in. We might sidestep any of these quandries if the universe is spaceless and immaterial. Perhaps it is something akin to a holographic projection. Then all apparent space, time, matter and events exist within a single infinitesimal point or spaceless, timeless and immaterial core reality. Like a dream projected through a mind. This might explain why time stops at the speed of light. Perhaps light is the key to understanding reality itself. Also the expansion hypothesis was proposed as a rescue device to explain away anomalies and serious problems with the big bang. The same way dark matter is a rescue device to attempt to explain how spiral galaxies could have retained their shape for billions of yrs because gravitational coherence and speed of rotation do not compute.
Morpheus it’s poetic license, dork. Relax.
@@Auliyah_not_urs The video is specifically about visualizing the expansion of space at the Big Bang, nothing more. It is not about the numerous unknowns about the origins of the universe. In that context, therefore, referring to a "rapturous mystery", or its "impossible existence" can only be in reference to the geometry of the expansion of the universe, unless you specify exactly what you're calling a "mystery". To then come back and completely change the subject is just douchebaggary. My original reply stands. The manner in which the universe expanded is not a mystery, and the universe itself is demonstrably not an impossible place, or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Maybe instead of popping magic mushrooms try studying physics.
@@smanticus This is not amateur hour for out-of-work poets. It's a video on astrophysics. You're in the wrong part of youtube.
The inside of the balloon isn't empty... It's filled with gas, just like the universe :)
Yeah you're missing the point.
Its called Big BANG, but we never wanted ppl to think it was a BANG... yeah ....
I think what people are asking really with it though is where is the centre of our visible universe! I get that it’s all expanding but then surely by definition it’s expanding from an original point? I get that if you went to another galaxy that stuff is moving from that too but that’s easily visualised even with an explosion! Imagine a big bucket of popcorn exploding in slo mo, every bit of popcorn is expanding out and no matter which piece of popcorn you focus on, they’re all expanding relative to that but it still originated from a point!
I think some of the confusion comes from the difference between the visible universe and the actual universe! The visible universe does have a measurable size, roughly 13 billion light years as she said, but the “universe” itself we have no clue, for all we know it does go on forever, or we might bump into the edge of it next week! But they’re 2 different things really, the visible universe isn’t a universe in itself, just what we can see of what we’re in, a bit like turning on a lantern in a massive empty warehouse, the bit the light lights up could be called the visible warehouse but it bares no direct relation to what the warehouse is or how massive it is
My theory on it is, and of course I could be wrong, but whatever the universe is I’m not sure, I think it will have a limited size but it could be on a scale of our visible universe being an atom and the actual universe being the size of our visible universe or even more? Anyway, I think that the universe is insanely massive, and it’s full of matter and dark energy and all that good stuff, but our visible universe is just the result of an insanely massive black hole that’s eaten so much stuff it reaches some kind of critical mass and goes bang which is a Big Bang and then all the matter starts flying out, starting as hydrogen etc because the gravity kind of nullified all comprehension of complex atoms, everything is broken down into its constituent forms and yeah goes bang and stuff starts to form again starting with hydrogen and moving on! I think that this is happening all over the “universe” and that we could be relatively close to another “visible universe” all its own happening but because of the limits of the speed of light we can’t ever see them, and with our universe, I think at some point the black holes will combine etc and a tipping point will be reached and we’ll get sucked back in, being weird crazy physics then maybe it won’t rewind the same way it started, it might just be a split second where that point is reached and suddenly 13 billion light years (or however far we’ve expanded by this point) just instantly comes slamming into a point of singularity that goes critical and has a Big Bang and it all starts again and as I said is happening all over the universe “all the time”! Just on astronomical scales!
But who knows, there’s nothing to say there aren’t loads of other galaxies and all kinds of stuff beyond the edge of the visible universe, it’s just not visible to us!
Maybe our entire visible universe exists in a drop of water that’s currently falling from a sky and at some point we’ll hit the windscreen of a car and be wiped away by wipers?
Or maybe we’re inside a massive black hole and this is what is beyond the event horizon, maybe the edge of our visible universe is the event horizon and we’re expanding because it’s eating other “visible universes” etc and growing but from inside looking out it looks like what we see? Like the balloon as an example, maybe that’s what a black hole is like, the rubber is the event horizon and it’s hoovering stuff up but once inside it’s just a calm centre of particles and galaxies floating around?
Sorry I wanted to clarify that in this explanation there's no singularity?
Yes, that's what i am expecting to be explained.
@@joeyfeliciano9199 hi! Same here. Because she did mention that the commonly taught 'explosion' and effects were not what they observed. I can understand that different parts of space can inflate (accelerate and decelerate) at different speeds which gives support to the analogy of the balloon stretching. However, that would mean that the universe at its birth still has all it's matter stored in a certain space before expansion wouldn't it?
How about you? What's your thoughts on her explanation?
@@projectmiyashi
Hello there buddy,
My thoughts? Here is what the wikipedia says about the bigbang THEORY: The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity,.
then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
So now, why she didn't include it?
The reason why is, because it will contradict her answer to the question. And no one knows where the bigbang starts.
@@projectmiyashi
They cannot expand anything if there's no center, it will break the law of physics.
If inflation started happening again, how would we know?
Ask people in Zimbabwe.
It hasn't stopped happening, and since the 1990's, we've realized it's accelerating, driven by what scientists call Dark Energy, which is a fancy phrase for shrugging. That said, there was a period when space expanded faster than the speed of light; it lasted a tiny fraction of a second, but it formed the basis for every structure in the universe. We likely couldn't survive such a period of expansion, since it would rip apart every proton and neutron in our bodies, so we would never know.
It was not a big bang but a BIG MISTAKe!
Please specify.
Big Happy Little Accident
What I have a problem with is wrapping my head around the fact that before the Big Bang, there wasn't even empty space around for the Big Bang 2 emerge outwards. The big bang also created the space.
It seems impossible to me.
What’s on the outside of the balloon?
People in the future: Truth
if the space itself expanding how did the galaxies colliding?
Maybe some galaxies are moving toward one another through space more quickly than space is expanding. That's a guess.
Mass of galaxies are quicker to pull close to each other than the expansion of space is to pull them apart. Good question!!!
Sorry, but I don't think that explained anything.
Yss it explained one thing and that is you're dumb😆
It did tbf
@@ahmed-nasserbihi549... WTH is TBF?
@@pkmr5284 "to be fair". It really did explain how a single point can expand and yet do so uniformly. I found it exceedingly useful.
She failed to cover where all the stuff came from in the first place.
Because she explained just a big bang event, and not a creation of the universe. That happened tiny bit before the big bang :)
@spim randsley Cmon now, leave some mysteries to other generations.
We don't knoe is the answer 😉
@@svendtang5432
We don't know is right. But what does the evidence suggest?
Time, energy, space and matter started with the big bang so that would suggest whatever caused the big bang must be unaffected by time, be immensely powerful and be immaterial.
What could possibly fit that description?
@@andrewdouglas1963 ancestor symulation? boltzmann brain? ;)
I imagine this as if you zoom in to a drop of water with microscope. All the microbes/dust particles/... remain at the same place in the drop, its just that you zoom into the drop and everything suddenly becomes bigger / further apart from each other because of changing scale.
My Physics teacher hated the term "Big Bang". His preference was to call it the Great Inflation or Great Decompression.
Bloooop.....suddenly every particle was 100,000 times its previous volume.....
Talked as if you’ve all got it figured out. I like the confidence
How do you figure? She speaks with authority, I agree, but she also states that there are things we simply don't know about the universe.
when your channel is litteraly 5Head
What if, before the big bang, the universe as the singularity was just a 1 dimensional point with infinite mass and infinite density, and the vast expansion of every individual thing in the universe accelerating away from each other was the 1 dimensional point rapidly becoming a 2 dimensional point creating the dimension of length and then becoming a 3- dimensional point, creating depth, allowing all galaxies and cosmic bodies to move away from each other in every direction humans can perceive but it also kept expanding into higher dimensions such as the 4th and so on which are the dimensions humans can only theorize about but not perceive and thus we have mysterious things like dark matter? Food for thought
That would be looking like stretching a rubber slab(3D) outward.
Eventually, the ballon will pop. 😳
Michelle Thaller is a great explainer of scientific ideas 💡 👍🏼
Is it Jodie Foster's voice from the movie "Contact"???
They should've sent a poet
Excellent explanation! But there's a subtlety here that wasn't discussed. If space itself is expanding, then presumably everything inside the space would be expanding along with it -- people, protons, planets, galaxies, ... and the very "rulers" that we might use to measure that an expansion is taking place. How would we then know that the Universe is expanding at all? For example, if the Universe and everything in it were to suddenly double in size, how would we ever know, since our standards of measurement will have also doubled in size?
The expansion of space doesn't mean it's not an explosion, it could be an explosion of space with the matter and energy.
Also it sounds a lot like if you move far enough in any direction you'll end up back where you began, are the dimensions circular or not?
Yeah, that's the issue with the balloon analogy. Like if you were to look far enough and long enough in one direction, would you see "the back of your head?" I mean this would be a multigenerational (multi-century) experiment as we'd be long dead once it was determined to be true or false
@@RyanPurcell She doesn't know what she's talking about, she's just repeating what she was taught!
I'm kinda high right now, Lady you just blow my mind!!!
Richard Lopez Humpty Dumpty looking headass
dont do too many drugs my young fellow
I think I kind of sort of got it maybe🤔💯✌🏿
HAHAHA Same lmao
Same here.... but I’m still confused! It’s like trying to teach a dog Algebra to me!
There has never been a big bang.
mr. truth
Finally someone with an independent thought..
@@discernmentoftruth9165
Some good discoveries come from independent thoughts. I have made a couple documented discoveries in my life, my thoughts could have potential. A bang with enough force to send galaxy's flying through space would have vaporized all mater and I think that because there is no resistance in space , I feel that any mater that is moving would not have slowed after a big bang. Considering the speed of a rapidly expanding bang with enough power to move galaxy's, the possibility to see any trace of something moving that fast multiplied by millions of years is probably not possible. the big bang in my opinion sounds improbable...
mr. truth
Yeahh I hardly know what to believe anymore everyone just parrots the consensus paradigm instead of actually thinking about it
wtf is going on here
Science as of today has enough evidence of that event.
Boo!
So, imagine big bang as ballon expanding, the only different is the surface of ballon represent our space instead of the ballon gas.
I knew Michelle Thaller from one of NASA's video like 14 years ago about Albert Einstein. Great to see her again
still no answer to what was BEFORE the big bang.
Yup! It's because, the bigbang isn't real!🤔
@Jacob Garcia
I know what you up to. You can't expand anything without a center. Radiation is another issue. Not because there's radiation bigbang THEORY is real.
@Jacob Garcia
Hey BIGBANGBOY,
why don't you change it with Big movements, instead of expanding? HAHAHA
@Jacob Garcia
Hey scififanboy,
Is there anything that can be expanded without a center except your BIGBANG THEORY which is by now don't have a center? If you can answer that, it means law of physics now is collapsing. Hahaha
@Jacob Garcia
No answer? Just, it is expanding and that is a fact FACT YOU!
HAHAHAHA😂🤣😂😋😂😋
Then, the moon is flat hahaha
What if the universe stays the same size and we’re just getting smaller???
Finally
Another analogy is two objects connected by a chain. Then as new links are added to the chain the two objects move farther apart.
This means before The Big Bang there was no such thing as empty space. Difficult to imagine
Although that was very interesting I don’t think it really answered the question. Explosion or expansion there still should be a center. It had to start somewhere.
Darcy Morgan I agree but why couldn’t she just say that as well? “This is actually how we think it happened but we’re not sure where the point of origin is”