The kids just love it to hear a "granddad" explaining all these things in a comprehensible way, learning English at the same time. And we love it because we don't have to answer those questions anymore ourselves ... But from this video I'm afraid what they will especially remember is how (not) to throw balls into baskets ...
I'm no physicist, so bare with me for a moment. He says that there isn't enough matter to completely fold the universe in itself, thus disproving that it has a finite size. But in these calculation, is he (or are physicists) computing the mass of dark matter?
Its so great to see science minus the arrogance and bold proclamations of absolute truth with everything presented as undeniable fact.
You can tell this wasnt one of those nerds who had a grilled cheese sandwich mushed into his head during lunch in high school who is now trying to portray physics as the absolute pinnacle of all "Knowing". Sagan did enough damage to reason in that area when he decided science was his god.
@Rizzy55 Absolutely. Most people treat Science like a Religion and completely rule out the possibility of anything involving religion being true despite the fact that - to be honest - we live in a much crazier Universe in FACT than anything in any religious text.
In science you can only go on the evidence you have at the time. Not alot stands the test of time but the beauty of science is that it evolves to become more correct.
There is no room in science for closed minded people.
@Typho0n86from the things i researched and came upon i realized that time doesn't exist.time is just a figurative illusion in our mind to project the holograms that our consciousness is playing through this physical body. its like a tape rolling on projecting all the clips in a movie thats it but we see it as time. the size of universe also is irrelevant.the reason we can't answer it is probably because when we decided to choose this experience we just created the surroundings not the SIZE of it
@MaxFlared Yeah time is a concept, but it still exists, we have history to prove it. It makes things move, and how we relate to one another. I got no idea what ur meaning by the hologram statment but... things do exist wheather we are there or not to observe them. The holographic is just a theory that tryes to expalin why we cant see. The size of the universe is relevent, because if it is finite then time is finite, and vica-versa with infinite
@IValtt probably just emptiness, its like if you ask what sorrounds the earth? space,but theories state space actually is composed of particles, very small particles which means real emptiness does not exist in space it' s simply that material it's compose of is invisible to us and does no interact with nothing (or almost with nothing), but maybe what sorrounds the universe asuming ur statement was true is maybe true emptiness which can't be difined as a thing or place since has no space or time
The ball was merely a 2-dimensional representation of that theory. So the surface of the ball would be the entire universe. There's basically no 3rd dimension in that representation, so the ball doesn't have to be "In somewhere". The people living in that kind of 2-dimensional unverse, wouldn't be albe to see/measure anything more than the 2 dimensions they live in. Same as we are unable to see beyond our 3 dimesions.
If nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and we know when Big Bang occured, we should know how big the universe with content is atleast? For example
299792458(speed of light) * 60 (min) * 60(h) * 24 (1Day) * 365(1year) / 1000 (km) * 13 700 000 000 * 2 (Radius + Radius ) = 25904 65857 80371 200 00 00 00 km long. And : 25904 65857 80371 200 00 00 00/4 = The radius of the universe = 6476 1646 4450 928 000 000 00 km^2 What do you think?
@adivinorum the speed of light is the fastest speed but before big bang phisics laws did not exist (this is why matter was created from practically nothing which would have break the famouse law "matter can't be created or distroyed only transformed" which mean big bang expanded faster than speed of light, also scientist discovered universe is expanding faster than light since "The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed" .
Not entirely. It is believed that space between objects is expanding. The objects inside the universe might move away from each other at high speeds, the space between them will also expand. This could increase the speed of which objects move away from each other, to the point where it's going faster than light. This would automatically mean those objects would go beyond the border of our visible universe. Good illustration is to take a balloon, draw dots on it and blow it up.
As he talked about matter curving space a question popped up in my head. Is there anything that can curve space in the opposite direction? From what I've understood this would be the opposite of gravity. It would feel strange if it doesn't as most things in the universe seem to have an opposite.
@TheLivirus I just watched another episode of from the same dude where he answered my question. He explained that space itself repells which is the cause of accelerated expansion. Doesn't that imply that space is the opposite of matter?
He is making the assumption that space starts off flat and then gravity curves the universe in on itself to make it spherical (2D.)
I've never made that assumption. I assumed the universe started spherical and has nothing to do with gravity causing warping. If a universe starts spherical and has no matter at all it would not snap and go flat.
All gravity warping tells us is that mass warps space and that space can be non-flat.
@AnonGemini "He is making the assumption that space starts off flat and then gravity curves the universe in on itself to make it spherical"
Sorry but I think you've misunderstood. He is demonstrating a 3D situation (space, which as you rightly say is 3D of its own accord) using a 2D representation (the balloon), just like drawing a cube on paper.
The effect of matter was not to make the universe 3D, but to make the universe (which is 3D) curve back on itself and thus be without edges.
@DarkKnightBob1o1 What do you mean, why 'the expansion rate is flat'. You can't talk about the expansion rate being flat, it doesn't make sense. The universe is either open, closed or flat (we don't know) - which is the SHAPE of the universe; and then there's the expansion rate, which is something else.
my bad. sure flat in shape. It's been measured and the shape is exactly flat. i.e. if you account for dark matter + dark energy then the universe's sum energy is exactly 0
@DarkKnightBob1o1 What do you mean, 'my bad'. I don't understand you. Is English your first language? I was arguing that it doesn't make sense to talk, as you did, of the expansion rate being flat. It's like saying the number 5 is green or something, it's mixing categories. And no, it hasn't been measured. Why do you say, it's been measured. We simply don't know whether the universe is open, closed or flat.
@archdeaconj dude darkknightbob is right, the curvature of the OBSERVABLE universe has been measured to be 0, which means it's flat.However It may be reasonable to think that the unverse as a whole is curved. But unless we invent superluminar spacecrafts, we can't find out if that's the case;)
@qui Thx. I didn't know that the curvature of the observable universe had been found to be 0. When was this? Can you give some sources or at least some details so I can look it up. Of course, it doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is flat. It depends of the degree of error of measurement whether this part of the universe is flat or only almost flat. Also it could be locally flat but overall some other shape. I was, tho', objecting to his talking about the EXPANSION RATE being flat.
@archdeaconj geez i didnt have the time to check but i believe its mentioned in this vid here - Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford) - also imho darkknight got it all confused when he was talkin bout the expansion rate being flat, which makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless i wonder if the universe behind our obervable horizon is expanding so quickly that it is already thermically dead.
@quitchiboo If expansion was x2 per metre - an object 1m away would now be 2m away. Something 10m away would now be 20m away. Something 100m away would now be 200m away. The further away something is the quicker it is moving away. The universe is expanding - things aren't 'moving' away they just happen to be getting further away.
In a spherical universe this happens to all objects in all directions based on distance, but all objects are getting equally further apart.
@AnonGemini im feeling kinda silly now, cause its so obvious^^. would be messed up if expansion reached "infinite" rates thou, there would be a point where not even the strong force could hold atoms together, or even more messed up, quark-triplets themselves could get torn apart which ,taking QCD into account, would create ALOT of new Quarks! i guess the energy needed to create these new quarks would eventually slow down expansion again?
@quitchiboo I have wondered about that for a while because it relates to something I have been thinking about for years. Most people see the universe like a blackboard and matter as being like chalk written on the board. I thought that space was like an LCD screen where a vaccum was like the colour black (no vibration) and all matter was like different colours (vibrating - perhaps strings.)
Space and matter are the same thing? But how would that work with expansion? Would it rip matter apart.
@AnonGemini that's what ive been pointing to, when expansion of space(matter) reaches critical speeds quarks are ripped apart, but as we no quarks cannot exist seperately, so if they get pulled apart far enough the strong force is sufficient to create a new quark pair, i believe this must limit the expansionrate of our universe. the analogy to a LCD screen is interessting but i dont even think there is something like real vakuum, hence theres only colour and no black on our hypothetical screen^^
that was exactly what i was arguing with peoples. it just has to be infinite, and its not that difficult to imagine that even tho we don't know whats in it, beyond what we can see.
The kids just love it to hear a "granddad" explaining all these things in a comprehensible way, learning English at the same time. And we love it because we don't have to answer those questions anymore ourselves ... But from this video I'm afraid what they will especially remember is how (not) to throw balls into baskets ...
Oldfaithful61 2 weeks ago
I'm no physicist, so bare with me for a moment. He says that there isn't enough matter to completely fold the universe in itself, thus disproving that it has a finite size. But in these calculation, is he (or are physicists) computing the mass of dark matter?
lucaslodovico 1 month ago
Its so great to see science minus the arrogance and bold proclamations of absolute truth with everything presented as undeniable fact.
You can tell this wasnt one of those nerds who had a grilled cheese sandwich mushed into his head during lunch in high school who is now trying to portray physics as the absolute pinnacle of all "Knowing". Sagan did enough damage to reason in that area when he decided science was his god.
Rizzy55 2 months ago
@Rizzy55 Absolutely. Most people treat Science like a Religion and completely rule out the possibility of anything involving religion being true despite the fact that - to be honest - we live in a much crazier Universe in FACT than anything in any religious text.
In science you can only go on the evidence you have at the time. Not alot stands the test of time but the beauty of science is that it evolves to become more correct.
There is no room in science for closed minded people.
BarrackObamarama 2 months ago
Hrmmm if the universe is infinite, then time must be infinite as well. So there was a before the big bang...?
Typho0n86 4 months ago 2
@Typho0n86from the things i researched and came upon i realized that time doesn't exist.time is just a figurative illusion in our mind to project the holograms that our consciousness is playing through this physical body. its like a tape rolling on projecting all the clips in a movie thats it but we see it as time. the size of universe also is irrelevant.the reason we can't answer it is probably because when we decided to choose this experience we just created the surroundings not the SIZE of it
MaxFlared 3 months ago
@MaxFlared Yeah time is a concept, but it still exists, we have history to prove it. It makes things move, and how we relate to one another. I got no idea what ur meaning by the hologram statment but... things do exist wheather we are there or not to observe them. The holographic is just a theory that tryes to expalin why we cant see. The size of the universe is relevent, because if it is finite then time is finite, and vica-versa with infinite
Typho0n86 3 months ago
@Typho0n86 Or, was there big bang at all?? we could ask that first
jjunfer 3 weeks ago
there are 7 firmaments of the universe and what we observe is only one of those firmaments or heavens
mersinlialico 4 months ago
light takes no time to reach us, as its instantaneous creation is its instantaneous destruction. go figure!
quuanttum 4 months ago
i bet his office smells of coffee , pipe tobacco and old leather - wonderful!
deathorb 5 months ago
@deathorb
Thank you, i havent laughed this early in a long time
Bigninja1223 4 months ago
If universe is a one big ball, shouldn't it be IN somewhere, what's surrounding it ?
I know that he said that the theory doesn't work...but just thinking...
IValtt 5 months ago
@IValtt probably just emptiness, its like if you ask what sorrounds the earth? space,but theories state space actually is composed of particles, very small particles which means real emptiness does not exist in space it' s simply that material it's compose of is invisible to us and does no interact with nothing (or almost with nothing), but maybe what sorrounds the universe asuming ur statement was true is maybe true emptiness which can't be difined as a thing or place since has no space or time
Blazerelf 5 months ago
@IValtt
The ball was merely a 2-dimensional representation of that theory. So the surface of the ball would be the entire universe. There's basically no 3rd dimension in that representation, so the ball doesn't have to be "In somewhere". The people living in that kind of 2-dimensional unverse, wouldn't be albe to see/measure anything more than the 2 dimensions they live in. Same as we are unable to see beyond our 3 dimesions.
TheLA384 4 months ago
@TheLA384 I get it, you're very smart : )
IValtt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and we know when Big Bang occured, we should know how big the universe with content is atleast? For example
299792458(speed of light) * 60 (min) * 60(h) * 24 (1Day) * 365(1year) / 1000 (km) * 13 700 000 000 * 2 (Radius + Radius ) = 25904 65857 80371 200 00 00 00 km long. And : 25904 65857 80371 200 00 00 00/4 = The radius of the universe = 6476 1646 4450 928 000 000 00 km^2 What do you think?
Thakillerrr 8 months ago
Comment removed
Thakillerrr 8 months ago
i love these videoes!!!
frydayupinhere 8 months ago
i don't think we'll ever find the answer to this question
kapplejacks22 10 months ago
if speed of light is the maximum speed... and if we know how long the big bang took place... then we know the size of the universe.
The expansion of the universe can be faster than the speed of light? if not, then we know the size of the universe...
adivinorum 11 months ago
@adivinorum but, there was no time or distance before the big bang.
burning1er 9 months ago
@burning1er
oh you were there were you????
Hellacool66 8 months ago
@Hellacool66 lol, smartass.
burning1er 8 months ago
@adivinorum the speed of light is the fastest speed but before big bang phisics laws did not exist (this is why matter was created from practically nothing which would have break the famouse law "matter can't be created or distroyed only transformed" which mean big bang expanded faster than speed of light, also scientist discovered universe is expanding faster than light since "The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed" .
Blazerelf 5 months ago
@adivinorum
Not entirely. It is believed that space between objects is expanding. The objects inside the universe might move away from each other at high speeds, the space between them will also expand. This could increase the speed of which objects move away from each other, to the point where it's going faster than light. This would automatically mean those objects would go beyond the border of our visible universe. Good illustration is to take a balloon, draw dots on it and blow it up.
TheLA384 4 months ago
As he talked about matter curving space a question popped up in my head. Is there anything that can curve space in the opposite direction? From what I've understood this would be the opposite of gravity. It would feel strange if it doesn't as most things in the universe seem to have an opposite.
TheLivirus 1 year ago
@TheLivirus I just watched another episode of from the same dude where he answered my question. He explained that space itself repells which is the cause of accelerated expansion. Doesn't that imply that space is the opposite of matter?
TheLivirus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the universe does not end
doghunt628 1 year ago
He is making the assumption that space starts off flat and then gravity curves the universe in on itself to make it spherical (2D.)
I've never made that assumption. I assumed the universe started spherical and has nothing to do with gravity causing warping. If a universe starts spherical and has no matter at all it would not snap and go flat.
All gravity warping tells us is that mass warps space and that space can be non-flat.
Trouble with flawed logic.
AnonGemini 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnonGemini "He is making the assumption that space starts off flat and then gravity curves the universe in on itself to make it spherical"
Sorry but I think you've misunderstood. He is demonstrating a 3D situation (space, which as you rightly say is 3D of its own accord) using a 2D representation (the balloon), just like drawing a cube on paper.
The effect of matter was not to make the universe 3D, but to make the universe (which is 3D) curve back on itself and thus be without edges.
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago
The universe is not finite and curved back unto itself?
Shit. I though that was well established.
He's gone and fucked me up now.
celshader 1 year ago
What a strange place to keep an orange.
Neutrinoghost 1 year ago
So the universe is expanding faster then light can travel?
cronicd20 1 year ago
eventually it will be.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
Wouldn't so-called 'dark matter', if it exists, provide enough mass to close the universe?
archdeaconj 1 year ago
no only enough to explain why the expansion rate is flat.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 What do you mean, why 'the expansion rate is flat'. You can't talk about the expansion rate being flat, it doesn't make sense. The universe is either open, closed or flat (we don't know) - which is the SHAPE of the universe; and then there's the expansion rate, which is something else.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
my bad. sure flat in shape. It's been measured and the shape is exactly flat. i.e. if you account for dark matter + dark energy then the universe's sum energy is exactly 0
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 What do you mean, 'my bad'. I don't understand you. Is English your first language? I was arguing that it doesn't make sense to talk, as you did, of the expansion rate being flat. It's like saying the number 5 is green or something, it's mixing categories. And no, it hasn't been measured. Why do you say, it's been measured. We simply don't know whether the universe is open, closed or flat.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj dude darkknightbob is right, the curvature of the OBSERVABLE universe has been measured to be 0, which means it's flat.However It may be reasonable to think that the unverse as a whole is curved. But unless we invent superluminar spacecrafts, we can't find out if that's the case;)
quitchiboo 1 year ago
@qui Thx. I didn't know that the curvature of the observable universe had been found to be 0. When was this? Can you give some sources or at least some details so I can look it up. Of course, it doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is flat. It depends of the degree of error of measurement whether this part of the universe is flat or only almost flat. Also it could be locally flat but overall some other shape. I was, tho', objecting to his talking about the EXPANSION RATE being flat.
archdeaconj 1 year ago
@archdeaconj geez i didnt have the time to check but i believe its mentioned in this vid here - Lecture 1 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Stanford) - also imho darkknight got it all confused when he was talkin bout the expansion rate being flat, which makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless i wonder if the universe behind our obervable horizon is expanding so quickly that it is already thermically dead.
quitchiboo 1 year ago
@quitchiboo If expansion was x2 per metre - an object 1m away would now be 2m away. Something 10m away would now be 20m away. Something 100m away would now be 200m away. The further away something is the quicker it is moving away. The universe is expanding - things aren't 'moving' away they just happen to be getting further away.
In a spherical universe this happens to all objects in all directions based on distance, but all objects are getting equally further apart.
AnonGemini 1 year ago
@quitchiboo Oh, my point is beyond the horizon would be the same as before it - not thermically dead.
AnonGemini 1 year ago
@AnonGemini im feeling kinda silly now, cause its so obvious^^. would be messed up if expansion reached "infinite" rates thou, there would be a point where not even the strong force could hold atoms together, or even more messed up, quark-triplets themselves could get torn apart which ,taking QCD into account, would create ALOT of new Quarks! i guess the energy needed to create these new quarks would eventually slow down expansion again?
quitchiboo 1 year ago
@quitchiboo I have wondered about that for a while because it relates to something I have been thinking about for years. Most people see the universe like a blackboard and matter as being like chalk written on the board. I thought that space was like an LCD screen where a vaccum was like the colour black (no vibration) and all matter was like different colours (vibrating - perhaps strings.)
Space and matter are the same thing? But how would that work with expansion? Would it rip matter apart.
AnonGemini 1 year ago
@AnonGemini that's what ive been pointing to, when expansion of space(matter) reaches critical speeds quarks are ripped apart, but as we no quarks cannot exist seperately, so if they get pulled apart far enough the strong force is sufficient to create a new quark pair, i believe this must limit the expansionrate of our universe. the analogy to a LCD screen is interessting but i dont even think there is something like real vakuum, hence theres only colour and no black on our hypothetical screen^^
quitchiboo 1 year ago
that was exactly what i was arguing with peoples. it just has to be infinite, and its not that difficult to imagine that even tho we don't know whats in it, beyond what we can see.
saleall 1 year ago
1) Nice penlid
2) mmm tasty orange
3) nice throw
ThatKidKnows 2 years ago