age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away than a static 13.75 billion light years distance. The observable universe is about 46.6 billion light years.(wiki- observable universe). Both of them are wrong butKatie is a very good singer, and she wrote good songs too. I wonder how seriously Simon takes his profession as he believed in common misconception.
@AgentGoldenSnitch : Yep I attended a lecture of Simon Singh in IITB and he told this story, but I had heard it first from this man here on a Ted talk(rather this very talk)
no one knows how vast the universe is!..did anyone think that the earth, solar system, galaxy (the Milky Way), cluster, super cluster, the universe we are living right now is just a small part of the 1 super universe?..to Mr. Michael Shermer, if you increase power of your radio telescope or AMS you will find out your universe expands to more than what you know our distance to the edge,..anyway, Katie's mentioned in her song it was just a guess!..i love you Katie!..
"if you increase power of your radio telescope or AMS you will find out your universe expands to more than what you know our distance to the edge"
This statement shows that you don't understand how a radio telescope works. A radio telescope is a receiver. It can only receive radio signals that have had enough time to reach it. It can't 'see further' by increasing the 'power'.
@2LegHumanist yah a receiver, but it needs radio signal source..where those radio signals came from, aliens?..Is there any cosmic objects emit radio signals to earth?..
@jojocastro1005 Are you serious? Did you think the purpose of the entire field of RADIO ASTRONOMY was to listen for aliens? Or that a radio telescope was some sort of sonar-like device that sends signals and waits for them to return to the dish? Do you realise that if that were the case they'd be waiting 8.5 years for a signal to be returned from our closest stellar neighbour (proxima centauri)? Or 5 million years for a signal to be returned from our nearest galactic neighbour (Andromeda)?
Yes celestial objects emit radio signals. Almost all of them do. All Stars and remnants of stars including Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Red Giants, black holes (Hawking Radiation), white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, Nova/Super nova. Not to mention Galaxies, Quasars and the big bang itself (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).
IF THEY DIDN'T, THERE WOULD BE NO RADIO ASTRONOMY!
Well it's sort of a guess... the hubble constant is calculated by plotting a graph of the recession speed of galaxies against their distance away. The issue with this is that large astronomical distances are very hard to calculate meaning that the value of the hubble constant is an approximation. Meaning that the age of the universe is an approximation.
how exactly you are sure tat we are 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the universe?..have you been that far and see that edge?..you might say, " So far our radio telescope (Hubble, LASER, MASER, AMS, etc., whatever it is) could reach. " how about characteristics of signals that get weaker as it travels into space or bending due to medium change like the Dark Matter,.i guess you put up space station to that edge and i'm sure it doubles your estimate, or might be 8X then you continue..
how exactly you are sure tat we are 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the universe?..have you been that far and see that edge?..you might say, " So far our radio telescope (Hubble, LASER, MASER, AMS, etc., whatever it is) could reach. " how about characteristics of signals that get weaker as it travels into space or bending due to medium change like the Dark Matter,.i guess you put up space station to that edge and i'm sure it doubles your estimate, or might be 8X then you continue..
@jojocastro1005 Because we know how old the universe is and we know how fast light travels. The universe is bigger thazn 13.7 billion light years because space between galaxies is expanding. However, we know that the edge of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years away because light from further away than that hasn't reached us yet and therefore is not OBSERVABLE.
@2LegHumanist "not Observable" Sir, you might say your equipment on space exploration have limitations. Sorry Sir if you find something wrong in my previous comment. I have knowledge on light physics(i.e.,how fast light travels, type of medium like the outer space and optics tech, laws of refractions, etc.)..Anyway, I love watching shows regarding space explorations and i admired those people who were behind in many projects specially NASA. Expecting to see more from them. God Speed!..
how intriguing - i admire Michael Shermer, got a crush on Katie Melua, was searching on some skeptics stuff, and stumbled upon this fuckin coincidence!
I don't know about you guys... But if I were Katie writing this song, and some scientist dude tells me I've got bad science in the lyrics, AND I actually wrote a revised version of the song, I'd probably be meaning for the revised version to be a mock of that "science dude's comment":-
"You want good science in a love song? Well, here you go. But it's not that romantic anymore, is it?"
@cumulion Yes well it's cross between a joke and Katie's nod to science. I'm sorry you're to thick to realise that... please get an education in common sense.
However, if you read the original lyrics, it's not exactly incorrect. She was only saying that HER guess is that we're 12 billion light-years from the edge (based on what she learned from the astronomy club). And it is true that no one can ever say that is true.
@rosiek1990 Erm more like before she was wrong by up to around 35 billion light-years before... because she used the word "Edge"... during the 13.7 billion years it took the light to get here the object it came from because the universe is expanding would have moved away a great deal. Not to mention whether there is an "edge" ... as a finite universe can exist with no edges, the same way the surface of a ball is finite with no edges. But... yeah...I wrote too much.
@joeisnice I suppose the majority of the people on youtube do not care about the size of the universe, but it's actually a very interesting question and shouldn't be mixed up with the size of the observable universe. I'm assuming most people actually think the universe is infinite and the others may say 13.7 billion light-years but people should always have some kind of reasoning behind any belief, this doesn't include because x told me y.
@bradkey98765 That's why Simon Singh as careful to use the term 'Observable Universe'. The observable universe an certainly be described as having an edge, just like a horizon can be described as having an edge.
@2LegHumanist My comment was 6 months ago, but I was referring to lack of the terms "Observable Universe" which means originally it could be perceived wrong by allot more than 1.7 billion years or just nonsensical, though I suppose I hit the YouTube character limit and couldn't be much more specific.
@bradkey98765 Ah I got you. Singh clearly gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed that because she had it close to the figure for the Observable Universe, that that is what she meant. But then again, a lot of physicist talk about "The Universe" when what they really mean is the observable universe.
@2LegHumanist Yeah, I think it is fair to take the assumption that she meant the observable universe. However the average person when hearing "The edge of the universe" will take it literally. Though the major part Singh didn't like wasn't that the distances were off, more on the miscomprehension that science is guess work, which surprisingly allot of people seem to have.
@2LegHumanist what exactly is the observable universe, btw? since space isn't infinite, at least that's what newer sciences has told me, though considering how often scientists change their mind... anyway; does space have an actual edge? and is that what we're counting, or are we just considering the last observable particle?
@Nazareadain The observable universe is what it says on the tin. It's the part of the universe we can observe. We obviously can't observe objects that are too far away from us for their light to reach us. Initially you might draw the conclusion then that the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years in radius, but remember, space is expanding and has been since the big bang. Compensating for that, you get approx 46 Billion light years.
The universe doesn't have to be infinite for there to be unobservable parts. It simply needs to be larger than 46 billion light years in radius form Earth and we know that it is bigger than that because we know how long the universe has been expanding and at what rate.
Not to mention the possibility of other universes which also cannot be observed.
Nobody knows for sure, there are a number of models that work, many of which predict curved space.
Scientists "change their minds" when the evidence leads them to change their minds. That's hardly a bad thing. Would you prefer them to dogmatically stick with one position and insist everyone agree with it like religions do? There's a reason that the catholic church didn't invent the aeroplane. You and I couldn't be having this conversation if scientists didn't "change their minds". It's called intellectual honesty. Something lacking in every religion.
@2LegHumanist Science is an exploration of reality. When one model of reality is proposed and an observation is made that goes against it, we come up with a new model or change the existing one. We don't launch crusades against the infidel.
@2LegHumanist seems we have had rather different experiences. Never seen some people's theories be displayed as facts, and even published to the point where it seems like the general truth?The situation isn't that scientists in general call it true and change their minds, but that it becomes a problem to find out what the truth is. And as nice it is to know you've got issues with religion, try to stay on topic;you're ending up looking pretty bitter. either way thanks for the answer
@Nazareadain You brought it up the topic of scientists changing their minds, I was simply responding to you. Religious dogmatists are simply an example of a group of people who refuse to change regardless of the facts. It's a valid comparison in the context and 100% on topic. You should consider it if you want to improve your understanding of science.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
@2LegHumanist My comment about science changing was a short digression to ground my hesitation toward stating the finity of space as fact; yours were 2 whole comment boxes of how religion goes on constant crusades. The core of my question was whether the edge of space as a litteral edge was observable, since space is considered finite; when hubble said that the the universe is expanding, he meant space itself, not just the particles cast out from the big bang. Wasn't quite answered
@Nazareadain You criticism of scientists "changing their minds" was a demonstration of your ignorance of science. Changing ones mind is part of forming evidence based beliefs and a very positive part of the scientific process. Your ignorance of science and all comments you make that demonstrate it, are on topic.
@Nazareadain Yes space itself is expanding. To answer the question of the edge of space you'd have to first understand what shape the universe is. All models of a finite universe proposed various curved shapes. Tell me, where is the edge of a sphere? If you walk in a straight line around a large spheroid such as the earth, what happens? You end up back where you started. If space is curved, a similar principle applies. There is no edge.
@Nazareadain However, this has nothing to do with the observable universe. The universe we can observe is the universe within a 23 billion light year radius (46 billion light year diameter) of our current location. No the universe does NOT have to be infinite for there to be a universe outside of what is observable, it simply needs to be larger than 46 billion light years in diameter. And guess what? IT IS.
@2LegHumanist calm down, man - stop making a scene and put the hissy fit on hold for long enough to stop flaunting your misconceptions, and try to read what i write instead if putting in whatever words you feel like adding for the sake of making an arguments to a topic that was never brought up. because you only have to make half your arguments irrelevant to make yourself look like an ass. and guess what? YOU ARE. PS. the edge of a sphere would be the surface area. umad?
@Nazareadain I can see how you'd want to respond with a straw man. If I demonstrated your level of ignorance in a public forum I'd want to muddy the water too.
You haven't addressed a single point I made. No, the surface of a sphere is not its edge retard.
ouch, for somebody playing the big boy's and strutting with so much pride, evidence has gotta hurt. and seriously, put some effort into your insults; you're mother didn't raise you to become an underachiever in every aspect of your life. I'll leave you to bury the charred remains of your dignity.
You're obviously using a special dictionary for retards. edge [ej] Show IPA noun, verb, edged, edg·ing. noun 1. a line or border at which a surface terminates: Grass grew along the edges of the road. The paper had deckle edges. 2. a brink or verge: the edge of a cliff; the edge of disaster. 3. any of the narrow surfaces of a thin, flat object: a book with gilt edges. 4. a line at which two surfaces of a solid object meet: an edge of a box.
@2LegHumanist and ooh, trying to use display of ignorance as an insult against me, just after saying admiting fault and changing ones mind is "called intellectual honesty" - do you drop everything you stand for the second the belief becomes inconvenient, or are you just such a false and/or capricious person, that they meant nothing to you in the first place, and you were just using it to appear superior? you really do make me wonder...
@2LegHumanist why would I want a different reaction - you getting completely flusterfucked and replying with 3 posts because you're incapable of delivering the same amount of degeneracy in just 1 is funny. Besides, you're blatant hypocricy on topic changing is adorable; you did it 1st. when bringing up religion, 2nd when attacking me - and I've certainly stayed on track with the second. and try to find another word to use than 'retard', i'm getting embarassed for you, here.
@2LegHumanist so you admit you're getting trolled. too bad you didn't know earlier; think about the time you could have spent disappointing your parents in other ways.
@rempion1 Thank you! There is no higher compliment than to be recognized as highly intelligent and skilled in the sciences, as indicated by the prestigious title of Nerd. Thank you little, every day, normal, mediocre person. I know my acknowledging you will be the high point of your life, so I recommend you cherish this moment dearly.
@Ramshobraja We can't all be ignorant, little, insignificant, closed-minded fools, and since you and rempion1 have the market cornered on that, some of us have no choice but to be smarty pants nerds. Its a hard life, but being intelligent has its rewards (which I realize are incomprehensible to someone as small-minded as yourself). Have fun living in your blissful, small, little world of magic and superstitions, and hatred of learned folks.
@sirterl Chill the fuck out man. I'm involved in quantitative biology, about as nerdy as you get. But it's okay if not everyone knows intricate details of scientific questions. No wonder scientists get this negative ivory tower image. Yeesh.
isn't the universe 93 billion light-years in diameter due to the expansion of space (source: wikipedia)? don't ask me to explain how the space itself expands becuase it is beyond my comprehension! surely this makes her corrected song wrong as well?!
@PeikLoef according to wikipedia, the observable universe is actually 93 billion light years in diameter. we are recieving light that is 13.7 billion years old (roughly the age of the universe), but this is not the size of the observable universe
we can only observe to a distance of about 13.7 billion light years, but the light we see at the edge is 13.7 billion years old and during the time it took the light to reach us the universe has been expanding, so in the 13.7 billion years it took the light to reach us anything at the "edge" of that light has traveled a considerable distance further away, being that our current universe is only 13.7 billion years old we can only observe light that is 13.7 billion light years away
@PeikLoef it is irrelevant how far the light has travelled. the oberserable universe (defined in comoving distance) is 93 billion light years in diameter. some of the objects we are seeing now are signigicantly further away than the 13.7 billion LY that the light has travelled. we are seeing objects that were a just a couple of billion light years away when the light was emitted. the cosmic microwave background radiation was less than 100 million LY from us when it was created.
@JamesThWilliams the universe may have a radius significantly larger than 46.5 billion light years in diameter. this is simply the comoving distance from the earth to the edge of the observable universe - defined as all of the matter etc that we can, in principle, see from planet earth at present day. every point in space has its own 'observable universe'.
@JamesThWilliams well.... a billion years from now we will see light that has travelled for 14.7 billion years! but the distance itself is fairly meaninless. when the 13.7 billion yr old light was emitted the source was very close to the point in space where earth would form. when we observe the light, the source is nearer to 93 billion light yrs away than 13.7
Well, singing twelve sounds better! Besides, there isn't any way to prove anything. How do we know our science is right? Although we get these results back "correct" multiple times, there could be an unseen variable that no human will ever know!
ouh... that's such an old comment.. if i got a dime for every fucker who thought he was original when he's actually quoting socrates i would have been rich!
I know that I know nothing!
Keep that way of thinking away from science. It has no value. The facts are our most probable choices and our only choices, though we might all just be brains in vats.
The gentleman in this video is mistaken. The size of the universe cannot be calculated based solely on its age. Space-time expands faster than light can travel. The observable universe is actually closer to 46 billion light years across. Check the web site for Scientific American, and do a search for "The Big Bang."
The guy who he was talking about (Simon Singh) was on Wednessday in my school to e.g. present this song and give a speech about dangerous sience... Many objects move a lot faster then the speed of light away from us, so we will never be able to see them.
I love how scientists are so SURE what is going on yet have no clue not even a guess of what makes up 95% of the mass of the universe .
Nearly every week they come out with something that " changes the way physicsists look at the universe " I get they are trying to make a living but they literally have no more a clue of what is going on then religious leaders .
Nope, you're wrong. Minor thing changes over years, but most of things are not. We still using theories and equations when building ships, houses, computers and just about everything. Physics which is discused and theorized now is far too abstract to be used now in everyday problems so it's ok if it changes a little bit. You've been brainwashed by religion or other drug.
A good example of 'new' and complex physics being used in our daily lives are GPS devices. If the system didn't take into account Einstein's general relativity (which predicts that time flows faster for satellites, because they are in a weaker gravitational field), it would acquire an error of about 10km per day in calculating your position.
Not knowing something is not the same as not knowing anything. You're making an argument that sounds good, but means nothing. Science is all about adding and refining knowledge. I think you should ahnd over all your electronics and go live in a cave if you're so worried about what science doesn't know...
What makes scientists so sure is their ability to predict and measure using multiple methods. There is rarely 100% certainty of anything in any science. However, there are probabilities and tweaks of science in order to increase the likelihood of accuracy. Certainly the accuracies are improved over past generations and much more than any so-called holy books. As to this video - loved it!
Thing that gets me is, if we are seeing things from 13.7 billion light years away and the universe has expanded since then... won't those objects... if they still exist (extremely unlikely) actually be further away then that now.
But yeah, I have seen a few hypothesis on it and estimates and they all vary wildly.
But we aren't on about the last thousand years are we. We are talking about the last 13.7 billion years. Cas the light we see is only from the start... so that means the position it was in that shows up at 13.7 has moved within the passed 13.7 billion years o.O.
Well that was my entire point anyways =P, we are only able to see their position as of 13.7 billion light years ago, we also have to remember we ain't at the center of the universe and if we can see 13.7 billion lights away, from the middle of the center then we have to address the possibilities that something caused matter seemingly to travel faster then the speed of light or potentially that there were multiple singularities vast distances apart and potentially other plausible hypothesis.
Probably best I stopped there I guess =P. Don't wanna send ya insane or anything. Basically it just means if we keep observing things that are further away from the center of the universe then permit-able by our understanding of physics, it arises more phenomenon to be investigated...
there are many theories that argue against that.. for example the universe may not be infinate as it seems to be expanding due to energy from the "big bang" but on the theory that it may not have enough energy to go on forever it may stop expanding, slow down, stop and start collapsing upon itself until there is a big crunch and then a big bang is created again. simon singh talks alot about this in his book, it is really interesting i recomend it! :)
Read article about universe on wikipedia. Basically - you're wrong about the picture. We can observe only a sphere of radius equal to 13.7 billion light years. What's beyond that sphere can be calculated differently but can't be seen because no light has travelled from there to us.
Konor, that's not correct. They just found a dying star that is 13 billion light-years away - the furthest they have ever seen. Your 78 billion number is incorrect.
We are 13.7 billion light-years from the edge of the observable universe, That's a good estimate with well-defined error bars. And with the available information, I predict that I will always be with you.
There's nothing wrong with the song. She says: "We are 12 billion light-years from the edge, that's a guess" The thing that is a guess is the fact that she said there were 12 billion light-years, not the fact that there are really 12 billion... Do you know what I mean? She emphasizes because she just TOOK A GUESS about it. (comment continues below)
She is emphasizing that it is a guess because she TOOK A GUESS (may the redundancy be excused), not because the fact that there are really 12 billion. Please comment.
@satansskidmarks Yeah it was :-)
AgentGoldenSnitch 1 month ago
age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away than a static 13.75 billion light years distance. The observable universe is about 46.6 billion light years.(wiki- observable universe). Both of them are wrong butKatie is a very good singer, and she wrote good songs too. I wonder how seriously Simon takes his profession as he believed in common misconception.
toughlightyear 1 month ago
I was at a lecture and Simon Singh told the exact same story. Lol.
AgentGoldenSnitch 3 months ago 4
@AgentGoldenSnitch was that the GCSE science talks at the dominion theater? that was frickin awsum haha :P
satansskidmarks 2 months ago
@AgentGoldenSnitch : Yep I attended a lecture of Simon Singh in IITB and he told this story, but I had heard it first from this man here on a Ted talk(rather this very talk)
19a14j5e22a14 1 month ago
@AgentGoldenSnitch ya i attended the lecture too… same story…! lol…!
ishleen23 1 month ago
18 people still think that we are 6 thousand light-years from the edge...
rosiek1990 3 months ago 5
@rosiek1990
You made my day :)))) The best comment! :)
lamiari 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
I must say, the first version sounded better, it may not be that accurate, but it sounded better.
jakiedark 4 months ago
@jakiedark Well obviously the first version was the original. The second version was just a joke by the singer.She didnt actually change it.
matt876mma 2 months ago
LOL Katie is just too cool :-)
TheSanien 7 months ago 3
You guys are way too geeky for me. All I know is Katie is absolutely adorable for doing that
whoopadeedoo 7 months ago 3
I don't know if she cares, she was just being sarcastic.
mvszao 8 months ago
@mvszao I'd rather say she was cute :)
Angelimir 8 months ago
no one knows how vast the universe is!..did anyone think that the earth, solar system, galaxy (the Milky Way), cluster, super cluster, the universe we are living right now is just a small part of the 1 super universe?..to Mr. Michael Shermer, if you increase power of your radio telescope or AMS you will find out your universe expands to more than what you know our distance to the edge,..anyway, Katie's mentioned in her song it was just a guess!..i love you Katie!..
jojocastro1005 8 months ago
@jojocastro1005
"anyway, Katie's mentioned in her song it was just a guess!..i love you Katie!.."
But it is NOT a guess, that's one of the points.
"if you increase power of your radio telescope or AMS you will find out your universe expands to more than what you know"
'observable universe' i think really means exactly that, we can not observe beyond the event horizon.
mindwis3 8 months ago
@jojocastro1005
"if you increase power of your radio telescope or AMS you will find out your universe expands to more than what you know our distance to the edge"
This statement shows that you don't understand how a radio telescope works. A radio telescope is a receiver. It can only receive radio signals that have had enough time to reach it. It can't 'see further' by increasing the 'power'.
2LegHumanist 7 months ago
@2LegHumanist yah a receiver, but it needs radio signal source..where those radio signals came from, aliens?..Is there any cosmic objects emit radio signals to earth?..
jojocastro1005 3 months ago
@jojocastro1005 Are you serious? Did you think the purpose of the entire field of RADIO ASTRONOMY was to listen for aliens? Or that a radio telescope was some sort of sonar-like device that sends signals and waits for them to return to the dish? Do you realise that if that were the case they'd be waiting 8.5 years for a signal to be returned from our closest stellar neighbour (proxima centauri)? Or 5 million years for a signal to be returned from our nearest galactic neighbour (Andromeda)?
2LegHumanist 3 months ago
Yes celestial objects emit radio signals. Almost all of them do. All Stars and remnants of stars including Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Red Giants, black holes (Hawking Radiation), white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, Nova/Super nova. Not to mention Galaxies, Quasars and the big bang itself (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).
IF THEY DIDN'T, THERE WOULD BE NO RADIO ASTRONOMY!
2LegHumanist 3 months ago
Well it's sort of a guess... the hubble constant is calculated by plotting a graph of the recession speed of galaxies against their distance away. The issue with this is that large astronomical distances are very hard to calculate meaning that the value of the hubble constant is an approximation. Meaning that the age of the universe is an approximation.
limetang 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how exactly you are sure tat we are 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the universe?..have you been that far and see that edge?..you might say, " So far our radio telescope (Hubble, LASER, MASER, AMS, etc., whatever it is) could reach. " how about characteristics of signals that get weaker as it travels into space or bending due to medium change like the Dark Matter,.i guess you put up space station to that edge and i'm sure it doubles your estimate, or might be 8X then you continue..
jojocastro1005 9 months ago
how exactly you are sure tat we are 13.7 billion light years from the edge of the universe?..have you been that far and see that edge?..you might say, " So far our radio telescope (Hubble, LASER, MASER, AMS, etc., whatever it is) could reach. " how about characteristics of signals that get weaker as it travels into space or bending due to medium change like the Dark Matter,.i guess you put up space station to that edge and i'm sure it doubles your estimate, or might be 8X then you continue..
jojocastro1005 9 months ago
@jojocastro1005 Because we know how old the universe is and we know how fast light travels. The universe is bigger thazn 13.7 billion light years because space between galaxies is expanding. However, we know that the edge of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years away because light from further away than that hasn't reached us yet and therefore is not OBSERVABLE.
2LegHumanist 7 months ago
@2LegHumanist "not Observable" Sir, you might say your equipment on space exploration have limitations. Sorry Sir if you find something wrong in my previous comment. I have knowledge on light physics(i.e.,how fast light travels, type of medium like the outer space and optics tech, laws of refractions, etc.)..Anyway, I love watching shows regarding space explorations and i admired those people who were behind in many projects specially NASA. Expecting to see more from them. God Speed!..
jojocastro1005 5 months ago
who cares what simon singh thinks its a lovely song with lovely lyrics
smout863 9 months ago
I actually went to one of Simon Singh's lectures with my school and at the end, he showed us this!
xmonica101x 9 months ago
I love the world
Xanict 10 months ago
Well this is just wrong!
It's actually 13.7 Billion and a year since I heard about the 13.7 Billion last February.
Duh!
myrtlebox 1 year ago
@myrtlebox When I read your pathetic try at a joke, I lost all hope for the human race.
frangle129 10 months ago
@frangle129 but you did laugh ;-)
myrtlebox 10 months ago
@myrtlebox no
frangle129 10 months ago
Haha, simon singh still doesn't stop talking about it, he was at the theatre on monday, and he told us about his lyrics. LOL.
LitooTapiiOca 1 year ago
hahahaha nice
Iamatheist1234 1 year ago
ha ha he should stick to science and leave music alone if this is what he does to good songs :) Very funny though
MollyRayForever 1 year ago
When Penny meets Sheldon
keshandouzi 1 year ago 17
Yes that is definitely very cool indeed. Nice work Katie.
MrMonkeyInk 1 year ago
i attended a lecture by simon singh and he showed us this. we all cracked up.
TheArabassist 1 year ago
how intriguing - i admire Michael Shermer, got a crush on Katie Melua, was searching on some skeptics stuff, and stumbled upon this fuckin coincidence!
axyelp 1 year ago
She didn't actually write the new version, Simon Singh did, and put it in the article he wrote in The Guardian.
heavymental85 1 year ago
LOOLS....i predict that i will always be with you... LOLS!
imashelchazona 1 year ago
I don't know about you guys... But if I were Katie writing this song, and some scientist dude tells me I've got bad science in the lyrics, AND I actually wrote a revised version of the song, I'd probably be meaning for the revised version to be a mock of that "science dude's comment":-
"You want good science in a love song? Well, here you go. But it's not that romantic anymore, is it?"
cumulion 1 year ago
@cumulion Yes well it's cross between a joke and Katie's nod to science. I'm sorry you're to thick to realise that... please get an education in common sense.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
First, I think it's really cool!!!! :) :)
However, if you read the original lyrics, it's not exactly incorrect. She was only saying that HER guess is that we're 12 billion light-years from the edge (based on what she learned from the astronomy club). And it is true that no one can ever say that is true.
Anyway, Katie, you rock!
apers5do 1 year ago
and btw: I think the new version would be even more popular than the old one... in nerd society :P
rosiek1990 1 year ago
oh, who cares?! it's ONLY 1.7 billion light-years! :P
rosiek1990 1 year ago
@rosiek1990 Erm more like before she was wrong by up to around 35 billion light-years before... because she used the word "Edge"... during the 13.7 billion years it took the light to get here the object it came from because the universe is expanding would have moved away a great deal. Not to mention whether there is an "edge" ... as a finite universe can exist with no edges, the same way the surface of a ball is finite with no edges. But... yeah...I wrote too much.
bradkey98765 1 year ago
@bradkey98765 no1 cares
joeisnice 11 months ago
@joeisnice I suppose the majority of the people on youtube do not care about the size of the universe, but it's actually a very interesting question and shouldn't be mixed up with the size of the observable universe. I'm assuming most people actually think the universe is infinite and the others may say 13.7 billion light-years but people should always have some kind of reasoning behind any belief, this doesn't include because x told me y.
bradkey98765 11 months ago
@bradkey98765 That's why Simon Singh as careful to use the term 'Observable Universe'. The observable universe an certainly be described as having an edge, just like a horizon can be described as having an edge.
2LegHumanist 7 months ago 8
@2LegHumanist My comment was 6 months ago, but I was referring to lack of the terms "Observable Universe" which means originally it could be perceived wrong by allot more than 1.7 billion years or just nonsensical, though I suppose I hit the YouTube character limit and couldn't be much more specific.
bradkey98765 7 months ago
@bradkey98765 Ah I got you. Singh clearly gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed that because she had it close to the figure for the Observable Universe, that that is what she meant. But then again, a lot of physicist talk about "The Universe" when what they really mean is the observable universe.
2LegHumanist 7 months ago
@2LegHumanist Yeah, I think it is fair to take the assumption that she meant the observable universe. However the average person when hearing "The edge of the universe" will take it literally. Though the major part Singh didn't like wasn't that the distances were off, more on the miscomprehension that science is guess work, which surprisingly allot of people seem to have.
bradkey98765 7 months ago
@2LegHumanist what exactly is the observable universe, btw? since space isn't infinite, at least that's what newer sciences has told me, though considering how often scientists change their mind... anyway; does space have an actual edge? and is that what we're counting, or are we just considering the last observable particle?
Nazareadain 2 weeks ago
@Nazareadain The observable universe is what it says on the tin. It's the part of the universe we can observe. We obviously can't observe objects that are too far away from us for their light to reach us. Initially you might draw the conclusion then that the observable universe is 13.7 billion light years in radius, but remember, space is expanding and has been since the big bang. Compensating for that, you get approx 46 Billion light years.
2LegHumanist 2 weeks ago
@Nazareadain
The universe doesn't have to be infinite for there to be unobservable parts. It simply needs to be larger than 46 billion light years in radius form Earth and we know that it is bigger than that because we know how long the universe has been expanding and at what rate.
Not to mention the possibility of other universes which also cannot be observed.
Nobody knows for sure, there are a number of models that work, many of which predict curved space.
2LegHumanist 2 weeks ago
@Nazareadain
Scientists "change their minds" when the evidence leads them to change their minds. That's hardly a bad thing. Would you prefer them to dogmatically stick with one position and insist everyone agree with it like religions do? There's a reason that the catholic church didn't invent the aeroplane. You and I couldn't be having this conversation if scientists didn't "change their minds". It's called intellectual honesty. Something lacking in every religion.
2LegHumanist 2 weeks ago
@2LegHumanist Science is an exploration of reality. When one model of reality is proposed and an observation is made that goes against it, we come up with a new model or change the existing one. We don't launch crusades against the infidel.
2LegHumanist 2 weeks ago
@2LegHumanist seems we have had rather different experiences. Never seen some people's theories be displayed as facts, and even published to the point where it seems like the general truth?The situation isn't that scientists in general call it true and change their minds, but that it becomes a problem to find out what the truth is. And as nice it is to know you've got issues with religion, try to stay on topic;you're ending up looking pretty bitter. either way thanks for the answer
Nazareadain 1 week ago
@Nazareadain You brought it up the topic of scientists changing their minds, I was simply responding to you. Religious dogmatists are simply an example of a group of people who refuse to change regardless of the facts. It's a valid comparison in the context and 100% on topic. You should consider it if you want to improve your understanding of science.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@2LegHumanist My comment about science changing was a short digression to ground my hesitation toward stating the finity of space as fact; yours were 2 whole comment boxes of how religion goes on constant crusades. The core of my question was whether the edge of space as a litteral edge was observable, since space is considered finite; when hubble said that the the universe is expanding, he meant space itself, not just the particles cast out from the big bang. Wasn't quite answered
Nazareadain 1 week ago
@Nazareadain You criticism of scientists "changing their minds" was a demonstration of your ignorance of science. Changing ones mind is part of forming evidence based beliefs and a very positive part of the scientific process. Your ignorance of science and all comments you make that demonstrate it, are on topic.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@Nazareadain Yes space itself is expanding. To answer the question of the edge of space you'd have to first understand what shape the universe is. All models of a finite universe proposed various curved shapes. Tell me, where is the edge of a sphere? If you walk in a straight line around a large spheroid such as the earth, what happens? You end up back where you started. If space is curved, a similar principle applies. There is no edge.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@Nazareadain However, this has nothing to do with the observable universe. The universe we can observe is the universe within a 23 billion light year radius (46 billion light year diameter) of our current location. No the universe does NOT have to be infinite for there to be a universe outside of what is observable, it simply needs to be larger than 46 billion light years in diameter. And guess what? IT IS.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@2LegHumanist calm down, man - stop making a scene and put the hissy fit on hold for long enough to stop flaunting your misconceptions, and try to read what i write instead if putting in whatever words you feel like adding for the sake of making an arguments to a topic that was never brought up. because you only have to make half your arguments irrelevant to make yourself look like an ass. and guess what? YOU ARE. PS. the edge of a sphere would be the surface area. umad?
Nazareadain 1 week ago
@Nazareadain I can see how you'd want to respond with a straw man. If I demonstrated your level of ignorance in a public forum I'd want to muddy the water too.
You haven't addressed a single point I made. No, the surface of a sphere is not its edge retard.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@2LegHumanist dictionary says hi:
edge/ej/
Noun:
The outside limit of an object, area, or surface.
ouch, for somebody playing the big boy's and strutting with so much pride, evidence has gotta hurt. and seriously, put some effort into your insults; you're mother didn't raise you to become an underachiever in every aspect of your life. I'll leave you to bury the charred remains of your dignity.
Nazareadain 1 week ago
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@2LegHumanist and ooh, trying to use display of ignorance as an insult against me, just after saying admiting fault and changing ones mind is "called intellectual honesty" - do you drop everything you stand for the second the belief becomes inconvenient, or are you just such a false and/or capricious person, that they meant nothing to you in the first place, and you were just using it to appear superior? you really do make me wonder...
Nazareadain 1 week ago
@Nazareadain Jesus. Now whose off topic keyboard warrior?
Try addressing even one, just one of the points I've made and you might get a different reaction.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
@2LegHumanist why would I want a different reaction - you getting completely flusterfucked and replying with 3 posts because you're incapable of delivering the same amount of degeneracy in just 1 is funny. Besides, you're blatant hypocricy on topic changing is adorable; you did it 1st. when bringing up religion, 2nd when attacking me - and I've certainly stayed on track with the second. and try to find another word to use than 'retard', i'm getting embarassed for you, here.
Nazareadain 6 days ago
@Nazareadain Ah. So you admit you're trolling. Nice one. I should have known nobody is as stupid as you look and sound.
2LegHumanist 6 days ago
@2LegHumanist so you admit you're getting trolled. too bad you didn't know earlier; think about the time you could have spent disappointing your parents in other ways.
Nazareadain 3 days ago
@Nazareadain Dah... sure retard.
2LegHumanist 2 days ago
@Nazareadain
"The situation isn't that scientists in general call it true and change their minds, but that it becomes a problem to find out what the truth is. "
I have no idea what you mean by that. But the way you've used the words "theory" and "fact" here...
"Never seen some people's theories be displayed as facts, and even published to the point where it seems like the general truth?"
...leads me to think you don't understand what a scientific theory is.
2LegHumanist 1 week ago
13.7 billion light years from the edge doesnt rhyme with the song.. so those nerd should leave beautiful katie alone :)
Nixter1992 1 year ago
@Nixter1992 It's called 'humour'. Not sure if you've come across such a concept.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@Nixter1992 Oh, and "12 billion light years from the edge" does?
jjqueiros 1 year ago
Simon Singh talked about this when i saw him doing some presentation at a uni
random6692rob 1 year ago
Does anybody know if there's a full version with the new (scientifically correct) lyrics?
dgrant625 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahaha at the end "how cool is that!". get laid bitch
rempion1 1 year ago
@rempion1 It's incredibly cool. That's how cool.
sirterl 1 year ago
@sirterl fucking nerd
rempion1 1 year ago
@rempion1 Thank you! There is no higher compliment than to be recognized as highly intelligent and skilled in the sciences, as indicated by the prestigious title of Nerd. Thank you little, every day, normal, mediocre person. I know my acknowledging you will be the high point of your life, so I recommend you cherish this moment dearly.
sirterl 1 year ago
God damn nerds.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja We can't all be ignorant, little, insignificant, closed-minded fools, and since you and rempion1 have the market cornered on that, some of us have no choice but to be smarty pants nerds. Its a hard life, but being intelligent has its rewards (which I realize are incomprehensible to someone as small-minded as yourself). Have fun living in your blissful, small, little world of magic and superstitions, and hatred of learned folks.
sirterl 1 year ago
@sirterl Chill the fuck out man. I'm involved in quantitative biology, about as nerdy as you get. But it's okay if not everyone knows intricate details of scientific questions. No wonder scientists get this negative ivory tower image. Yeesh.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
No matter what 12, 14, 15, 20, its just one song,
The stupids politics dfo Wars and nobody tell nothinG !!!!!
Katie you are great !!!
rodasalejandria 1 year ago
isn't the universe 93 billion light-years in diameter due to the expansion of space (source: wikipedia)? don't ask me to explain how the space itself expands becuase it is beyond my comprehension! surely this makes her corrected song wrong as well?!
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
@xxzmikezxx
hence the "observable universe" part, her corrected song is correct
PeikLoef 1 year ago
@PeikLoef according to wikipedia, the observable universe is actually 93 billion light years in diameter. we are recieving light that is 13.7 billion years old (roughly the age of the universe), but this is not the size of the observable universe
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
@xxzmikezxx
we can only observe to a distance of about 13.7 billion light years, but the light we see at the edge is 13.7 billion years old and during the time it took the light to reach us the universe has been expanding, so in the 13.7 billion years it took the light to reach us anything at the "edge" of that light has traveled a considerable distance further away, being that our current universe is only 13.7 billion years old we can only observe light that is 13.7 billion light years away
PeikLoef 1 year ago
@PeikLoef it is irrelevant how far the light has travelled. the oberserable universe (defined in comoving distance) is 93 billion light years in diameter. some of the objects we are seeing now are signigicantly further away than the 13.7 billion LY that the light has travelled. we are seeing objects that were a just a couple of billion light years away when the light was emitted. the cosmic microwave background radiation was less than 100 million LY from us when it was created.
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
@xxzmikezxx
We are not at the centre so we could easily be anywhere from zero to 46.5 billion light years from the edge.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
@JamesThWilliams the universe may have a radius significantly larger than 46.5 billion light years in diameter. this is simply the comoving distance from the earth to the edge of the observable universe - defined as all of the matter etc that we can, in principle, see from planet earth at present day. every point in space has its own 'observable universe'.
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
@xxzmikezxx
We can only observe 13.7 billion light years because of radiation from the big bang, we will never see farther.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
@JamesThWilliams well.... a billion years from now we will see light that has travelled for 14.7 billion years! but the distance itself is fairly meaninless. when the 13.7 billion yr old light was emitted the source was very close to the point in space where earth would form. when we observe the light, the source is nearer to 93 billion light yrs away than 13.7
xxzmikezxx 1 year ago
12 or 13.7 ? Who gives a fuck. We will never get there anyway.
Taxxi88 1 year ago
I actually prefer the second one, lol
dgrant625 1 year ago
Well, singing twelve sounds better! Besides, there isn't any way to prove anything. How do we know our science is right? Although we get these results back "correct" multiple times, there could be an unseen variable that no human will ever know!
raminozia 1 year ago
@raminozia
ouh... that's such an old comment.. if i got a dime for every fucker who thought he was original when he's actually quoting socrates i would have been rich!
I know that I know nothing!
Keep that way of thinking away from science. It has no value. The facts are our most probable choices and our only choices, though we might all just be brains in vats.
Serethen 1 year ago
The gentleman in this video is mistaken. The size of the universe cannot be calculated based solely on its age. Space-time expands faster than light can travel. The observable universe is actually closer to 46 billion light years across. Check the web site for Scientific American, and do a search for "The Big Bang."
mindlessdrone1991 2 years ago
he says observable universe.
mephistophile33 2 years ago 6
The age of the universe is shorter in light years than it is wide, so 13.7 is age and it is 156 billion light years wide.
truvelocity 1 year ago
yes, it cannot be calculated yet. and the big bang is not true also.
emkunheartsyou 1 year ago
Comment removed
mindlessdrone1991 2 years ago
The guy who he was talking about (Simon Singh) was on Wednessday in my school to e.g. present this song and give a speech about dangerous sience... Many objects move a lot faster then the speed of light away from us, so we will never be able to see them.
Nepfbert 2 years ago
What objects?
asmodeus585 1 year ago
@asmodeus585
Stars, Planets, whole universes and so on...
Nepfbert 1 year ago
She did not wrote the song.
He is wrong about that.
Mike Batt wrote it.
Also his claim of 13.7 billion light years denpends on a few very restrictive, but unproven assumptions.
So it is a GUESS again, only done a little bit more sopishticated.
schusterlehrling 2 years ago
Are you saying it's a very old song and it was right when it was written?! ;o)
PedroKTFC 2 years ago
PS That was in reply to schusterlehrling who pointed out it was written by Mike Batt, presumably some time ago!
PedroKTFC 2 years ago
That's so cool!
ikvsabre 2 years ago 2
I actually prefer the change! lol
dgrant625 2 years ago 5
he doesn't seem deep to me, could be mistaken, I would suggest Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber as well
interwoven222 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I despise that song.
eplemannen 2 years ago
The wonderful thing is that she was able to rewrite the lyric to include the accurate calculation - and that she cared.
She deserves better than her current fanbase.
thallassocracy 2 years ago 109
every fan thinks that ;p
blahblabahl 2 years ago
@thallassocracy the lyrics were wrote by simon singh, the same guy that called her out. they met together to record this.
volound 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almost True? What kind of fucking statement is that. Don't be getting in Katies face for mocking her lyrics and end with a statement like that.
LargeLad100 2 years ago
That sounds alot better than the original anyways :-P
LadyMargolotta 2 years ago 6
that song made me lulz
saitokthx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it's all in the bible morons
sapitron 2 years ago
get a brain you moran!! lol
asseeninYOURDREAMS 2 years ago
its a love song DAMN
tipttt 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how scientists are so SURE what is going on yet have no clue not even a guess of what makes up 95% of the mass of the universe .
Nearly every week they come out with something that " changes the way physicsists look at the universe " I get they are trying to make a living but they literally have no more a clue of what is going on then religious leaders .
Etherian1977 2 years ago
Nope, you're wrong. Minor thing changes over years, but most of things are not. We still using theories and equations when building ships, houses, computers and just about everything. Physics which is discused and theorized now is far too abstract to be used now in everyday problems so it's ok if it changes a little bit. You've been brainwashed by religion or other drug.
AnonymousPL 2 years ago 4
A good example of 'new' and complex physics being used in our daily lives are GPS devices. If the system didn't take into account Einstein's general relativity (which predicts that time flows faster for satellites, because they are in a weaker gravitational field), it would acquire an error of about 10km per day in calculating your position.
tomaz2007 2 years ago 32
Not knowing something is not the same as not knowing anything. You're making an argument that sounds good, but means nothing. Science is all about adding and refining knowledge. I think you should ahnd over all your electronics and go live in a cave if you're so worried about what science doesn't know...
biofh 2 years ago 3
What makes scientists so sure is their ability to predict and measure using multiple methods. There is rarely 100% certainty of anything in any science. However, there are probabilities and tweaks of science in order to increase the likelihood of accuracy. Certainly the accuracies are improved over past generations and much more than any so-called holy books. As to this video - loved it!
handygeek 2 years ago 5
The furthest image hubble captured was 78 billion light years away.
But that image is 78 billion years old...
How is that possible if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old?
(Does (or did) the universe expand at a speed greater then the speed of light? Isn't that impossible?)
konor23 2 years ago
i am wondering the same question!!
Drum44er 2 years ago
yes, it did.
also, the 13.7 billion is only the observable universe, there is more space past that, just light isn't there yet
zantrua 2 years ago
you mean "there isn't light that has reached earth from that distant yet" sorry...doesn't really matter my correcting here lol ^.^,
FoxXonfor 2 years ago 5
Thing that gets me is, if we are seeing things from 13.7 billion light years away and the universe has expanded since then... won't those objects... if they still exist (extremely unlikely) actually be further away then that now.
But yeah, I have seen a few hypothesis on it and estimates and they all vary wildly.
DoomsdayR3sistance 2 years ago
well...by the time we looked that far...They would have moved like an inch over the last few thousand years
FoxXonfor 2 years ago
But we aren't on about the last thousand years are we. We are talking about the last 13.7 billion years. Cas the light we see is only from the start... so that means the position it was in that shows up at 13.7 has moved within the passed 13.7 billion years o.O.
DoomsdayR3sistance 2 years ago
maybe...
FoxXonfor 2 years ago
Well that was my entire point anyways =P, we are only able to see their position as of 13.7 billion light years ago, we also have to remember we ain't at the center of the universe and if we can see 13.7 billion lights away, from the middle of the center then we have to address the possibilities that something caused matter seemingly to travel faster then the speed of light or potentially that there were multiple singularities vast distances apart and potentially other plausible hypothesis.
DoomsdayR3sistance 2 years ago
my brain hurts now...what?
FoxXonfor 2 years ago
Probably best I stopped there I guess =P. Don't wanna send ya insane or anything. Basically it just means if we keep observing things that are further away from the center of the universe then permit-able by our understanding of physics, it arises more phenomenon to be investigated...
DoomsdayR3sistance 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatBinBand 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zantura
there are many theories that argue against that.. for example the universe may not be infinate as it seems to be expanding due to energy from the "big bang" but on the theory that it may not have enough energy to go on forever it may stop expanding, slow down, stop and start collapsing upon itself until there is a big crunch and then a big bang is created again. simon singh talks alot about this in his book, it is really interesting i recomend it! :)
ThatBinBand 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousPL 2 years ago
Read article about universe on wikipedia. Basically - you're wrong about the picture. We can observe only a sphere of radius equal to 13.7 billion light years. What's beyond that sphere can be calculated differently but can't be seen because no light has travelled from there to us.
AnonymousPL 2 years ago
Konor, that's not correct. They just found a dying star that is 13 billion light-years away - the furthest they have ever seen. Your 78 billion number is incorrect.
handygeek 2 years ago 4
Rotflmao.. Awesome.
So humble.
Yes her personality does shine through.
It's almost impossible to stop a real artist from
shining through.
hovhaness 2 years ago 2
We are 13.7 billion light-years from the edge of the observable universe, That's a good estimate with well-defined error bars. And with the available information, I predict that I will always be with you.
that was :)
OminaOne 2 years ago 5
i met simon singh today
Hamid2493 3 years ago
I met him today, He played this song to us. XD
SpagbolMuncher 2 years ago
Awesome
treydarnellh 3 years ago 2
Actually we're over 46 billion light-years from the edge. We just can't see more than 13.7 ly.
DullBull 3 years ago
Actually, it goes.
'we are 12 million light years from the edge,
thats a GUESS'
Obv it means she was guessing. it doesnt mean she was being scientific. they didnt need to change it.
although, the re-cut is quite funny.
Fairyxxxxxdude 3 years ago
I actually find the revised version more romantic (last line)... gawd I'm such a nerd XD
BoggledL 3 years ago 6
lol!! funny audio preview
dragondwand40 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now that you nerds know it's 13.7 billion ly's you still won't get laid ...so you fail shoot yourself .
Etherian1977 3 years ago
Yes and im betting you wont get laid either since you're posting on youtube comments all day!
maddogbrk 3 years ago 2
There's nothing wrong with the song. She says: "We are 12 billion light-years from the edge, that's a guess" The thing that is a guess is the fact that she said there were 12 billion light-years, not the fact that there are really 12 billion... Do you know what I mean? She emphasizes because she just TOOK A GUESS about it. (comment continues below)
caikolmos 3 years ago
She is emphasizing that it is a guess because she TOOK A GUESS (may the redundancy be excused), not because the fact that there are really 12 billion. Please comment.
caikolmos 3 years ago
It is funny tho... :o)
caikolmos 3 years ago
i actually went to a talk by simon singh yesterday, and he showed the original clip, and the revised version...it was hilarious!
25377456 3 years ago
SIMON SINGH IS A G! His maths lecture was so jokes with that bit, shame all the others were crap
darrold1700 3 years ago 2
Completely agree with you...
RuffletteBella 3 years ago 2
Thirded...
SpagbolMuncher 2 years ago 3
GO KATIE!!! haha
lovingitlots 3 years ago
lololololol
jakejakewhat 3 years ago
does anybody know wer i can get the 13.7 billion version ???
kevinkewin 3 years ago 2