A Polarizing Discovery About the Big Bang!

More about the Big Bang: • Science, Religion, and...
More about the Cosmic Background Radiation: • Picture of the Big Ban...
And special thanks to Sean Carroll and Mark Trodden for their comments and discussion in the making of this video.
Links to more info about the BICEP experiment:
www.cfa.harvard...
bicepkeck.org/
www.caltech.edu...
www.slate.com/b...
Created by Henry Reich
Thanks to Nima Doroud for contributions.
Music by Nathaniel Schroeder / drschroeder
MinutePhysics is produced by Neptune Studios LLC
neptunestudios...
Support MinutePhysics on Patreon: / minutephysics
Link to Patreon Supporters: www.minutephys...
Thanks to the following Subbable supporters:
Owain Blackwood
@vicnice137
www.lightbow.net
Website | www.minutephys...
Merch | dftba.com/Minu...
Twitter | / minutephysics
Facebook | / minutephysics
MinutePhysics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics - all in a minute!

[@S00rabh]

"If their finding are correct" I loved this line, this is why science works.

[@stkyriakoulisdr]

And unfortunately, the findings were not correct. Later studies show that those patterns are more likely generated by space dust... Alas, the search continues

[@fernank017]

gotta love that scientific method curve-ball at the end, "assuming, of course that their results are confirmed, by other experiments."

[@Pwells1]

Well, it wasn't too long ago (what, last year?) that one group of scientists said they'd discovered particles traveling at faster than light speed. And we all got so pumped up. And then...it was just that their calibration was off :/

[@Narcissist86]

Patrick Wells It was three years ago. And to be accurate, people only got pumped up because of popular media reporting. The actual scientists themselves has called the observation an "anomaly", and that's how the scientific community treated it. They weren't as "pumped up" and you seem to think. The authors published the results in hopes others can replicate the observations, and help them confirm the results. The announcement was a lot more tentative than the BICEP2 measurements.

[@WoolLafleece]

Narcissist86 Yeah, the feeling was more like "Okay, something's fucked up here, can anyone else figure it out?" with a private thought of hope, just a sliver, wanting it to real.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Well, it turns out the thing was probably just dust all along, so it's a good thing he added that disclaimer.

[@aurelia8028]

No I don't gotta love it

[@BinkieMcFartnuggets]

So when Will Smith was talking about "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It", he was really making a profound statement about the creation of the universe.

[@jordanweir7187]

rofl

[@chrisross7754]

man my mind is blown.. cuz fresh prince is on my tv right now.. netflix.. dats some old-random shit

[@alexnguyen8913]

yes?

[@Grace-iv1ho]

Jordan Weir the brightest mind of our generation

[@thecassman]

First The Higgs Boson and now this.... We truly are living in a golden age of scientific discovery. Genuinely exciting times.

[@Canaanabolaanan]

Glorbal warming is fake! God hates figs. ... just testing out the counterarguments. They're still terrible.

[@Zandonus]

The Glorbs will Prove they are more real THAN YOUR ENDLESS PAIN. Trigger the invasion, comrades. These humans think they are so wise about our mating rituals @_@ #alienlogic

[@VorlonDrow]

Zandonus The Gloobs will kick the Glorbs' ass and you know it!

[@spider853]

Gravity left

[@smartart6841]

@@VorlonDrow pffft gloobs have no chance against gleebs. Just wait! Wait a bit longer,they didnt invest in light speed travel but instead powerful weapons

[@thejerrymobile]

In the first 20 seconds of this video, you explained polarization more concisely than I had ever heard it done.

[@randomnumbers84269]

"The details are complicated" No shit :D

[@kasterborous1701]

Nothing worth doing is easy.

[@TheHydrogen4]

Not as complicated as some women

[@MrRizeAG]

kasterborous Except your little sister.

[@davidrust3169]

It may be awaiting confirmation, but this is pretty damn cool.

[@MobiusCoin]

There's been a lot of stories about this lately in the media. This is the first explanation where it kinda made sense. Thanks for using my rudimentary understanding from my high school physics days to help me connect the dots.

[@awesomenokes]

Big Bang? Don't you mean "Everywhere Stretch?"

[@CapitalCCapitalC]

look at how far our inquiring minds can go when we keep searching for answers rather than settling on the idea that some unknown force is in control of everything. its exciting to know that we can keep learning forever.

[@IceMetalPunk]

And we will keep learning forever :) . Sure, some (or many) people will continue to make stuff up to fill the gaps, but many will continue to peer behind God's curtain and see the machinations running everything.

[@GothicSilverWolf666]

MinutePhysics lives!!!

[@DaScribbler]

Clumps and Jiggles. I learn new technical terms every day.

[@gromm93]

That's astronomy for you! What's a big black hole in space? What's the big red spot on Jupiter? What are stars that pulse? That's right! Plain English! :)

[@sassygirl9385]

I like the word Jiggles ..haha

[@FernieCanto]

So it means that the Universe... *puts on shades* ... it gettin' jiggly with it.

[@zavvie809]

FernieCanto No, you don't put on shades beacuse it blocs the jiggles :D (jiggled photons)

[@bezzaboyo]

tadej petric FernieCanto i.imgur.com/M6G6L0z.png

[@RedrunLoL]

I love it when science just blows me away.

[@Negruzzu]

"...blows you" heeeee......he-he-he :3

[@RedrunLoL]

away away away! D: hahaha!

[@randomperson12494]

***** what are you, 10?

[@thomas40444]

randomperson12494 Probably browses Reddit.

[@Negruzzu]

randomperson12494 After some weed i decided to delight myself with videos and light-headed as i was i wasn't thinking straight as you aleardy figured it out. xD You know...when you're in that "chilly" mood even the little things can tickle your "dirty mind". Don't be so hasty on people ^^.

[@FAYMprod]

this is about 1.5 more minutes of physics than i can handle

[@gromm93]

WIMP. ;)

[@ZUIDOVICIOUS69]

I lost him... Completely lost I thought I had him but completely lost him. Next time

[@0mn0m8w31rdc4ndy]

I know. I usually kind of do, but this time was like a nuke of information that I can't understand

[@EnEmerson]

0mn0m8w31rdc4ndy What part are you guys confused about? The polarization of light or the "clumps" and "jiggles"?

[@tammytoa]

I understood the bit about polarized sunglasses...because I have a pair. Everything else...no

[@ealdomino]

Due to the fact that I was not yet able to understand this discovery (I'm not even at the university), I was looking for a simple explanation. Thank you MinutePhysics !

[@unvergebeneid]

Best explanation so far! Still didn't get it.

[@haiggoh]

Like Richard Feyman once famously said: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"

[@eliasnunez4506]

I didn't understand shit :(

[@unvergebeneid]

haiggoh I find that hardly satisfactory in this case ;)

[@haiggoh]

elias nunez FANTASTIC! That's a good sign, you're getting the hang of it :P Penny Lane I was just trying to comfort you, even scientists admit it's hard to understand. Btw, Penny Lane is my favorite Beatles Song

[@SonoranAstro]

I have learned through a childhood of physics books and astronomy in school alot of this stuff but the amount of intelligence and creativity it takes to look at something and come to a conclusion is insane.

[@Nerdthagoras]

This is about this discovery and not religion. Why would Henry post this video to have the comments talk about god? Henry has also provided links which pertain to this video so instead of talking about some one thing no one can prove or disprove, How about we discuss how awesome the science and experimentation was?

[@TheBossHaas]

Damn, guys! I spent half of yesterday reading the actual paper, trying to understand the hubbub, and you lay it all out in under two minutes. Hats off to you; well done.

[@thetruegoldenknight]

Exciting stuff is brewing in SCIENCE! But then again, when is it not?!

[@4samAA7]

Hats off to you mate.. you've explained this in about one minute only, and I understood it all.. incredible. keep it up man..

[@saboo_tage]

you know shit gets real when minutephysics adds maracas to the baseline

[@luc1ferous]

I've been waiting for this, I needed an entry point to begin properly understanding what was discovered, suspected and so on...

[@alledman98]

Between this and Cosmos, I'm learning more about science than I ever did in school.

[@f4350]

More book recommendations please. I absolutely loved The Martian.

[@EricJohansson]

I thought I understood how polarized light and polarization filters worked. Seeing the filters as (tiny) horisontal/vertical slits, that only lets the light waves of the same orientation pass through seemed logical. Then I heard about circular polarization, and now I don't know what to believe any more. I guess it's a quantum-thing, that can't really be explained with "normal" physics? An episode explaining this would be great.

[@Projectblind]

In the first 20 seconds of this video, you explained polarization more concisely than I had ever heard it done.

[@xxjman1217xx]

Thanks for the quick post of this video!

[@RobBates]

I appreciate that you're diving into the deep stuff... but I think we needed a little more premise on this one. But, maybe I'm just dense.

[@Novenae_CCG]

You're so dense, visible light doesn't even propagate through you.

[@mrwho995]

What didn't you get from the video? I'll try to explain what I can if you want.

[@RobBates]

mrwho995 Let me preface my questions with my lack of credentials. I like to read about Physics, but have not studied it. I assume that is fine because I'm basically the target audience for Minute Physics. The premise for the video is polarized light, but then we jump to background radiation. How do the 2 relate? ("…if we measure the polarization of light coming from this cosmic background radiation…") Is it merely that we can tell where the clumps were because of the background radiation? If so, how? Since light originating from the center of the big bang would have traveled away from the center much faster than matter (i.e. the earth; our point of observation) what is the light we are measuring? Obviously it isn't the light from stars (i.e. sources of light ignited after the big bang), and it isn't light that bounced back from matter that was farther away (because all detectable matter originated with the big bang), so how are we measuring the polarization of light from background radiation? How can we tell the difference between a 45 degree angle polarized light from a jiggle, and a 45 degree angle polarized light from a border around a clump? Is it just that the 45 degree angle is VERY exacting, so we can rule out a large number of near-45 degree angles that would occur from a clump border? What axis is this angle calculated on (is it based on the angle of us from the center of the big bang)? In the drawing, jiggles and clumps seem to co-exist, but he said that jiggles were created fractions of a second after the big bang. Did Jiggles continue to exist in order to co-exist with the clumps? Or are we able to distinguish light that bounced off of an initial jiggle VS a later jiggle? Or were clumps also created at that early state (this didn't seem to be the case in the video, but I thought it was worth listing all alternatives to the ambiguity)? Lastly, if there was a dense plasma where light was bouncing around, isn't this in direct conflict with his earlier video explaining that the Big Bang was more of an Everywhere Stretch where our concept of time merely doesn't work at near the point of origin? Wouldn't a plasma suggest a more classical and explosive view of the Big Bang? Are these observations truly at odds, or am I misunderstanding the "Everywhere Stretch"?

[@SoYFooD2]

Rob Bates at the beging of the big bang there was no licht, there was no space fore it en no thing that can make it. every thing in the univers was 1 thing. thet after thet it startit to get room to fall apart en energy had a chast to become distingt in nature en to group up or to pull away. the next step is the plasma he talkt about. matter so pred to gether that it formd 1 attom but it had electrons en the space between the attom en the elecreons where licht began but it was so compresd it had no plase to move to. then the attoms got enuf space to have the electrons in ther corect orbit en fore matter to take up the space it dus now. thet was the moment that licht got the chanse to move in a strait line to oure raidio teleschops because the lich is strecht by the expantion of spase to radio wave's. the cosmic radio backround nose showd thet some parts of the singel atom like state to the multipul had diferens in tempurtur, showing thet when all the stuff was made not all of the enviroment it was in was the same. now thite this discovery whe can show that gravoty wans not smooth but like every thig els we have discovert it hase qwanta. a minimal energy for gravity to be gravity. i am dutch en typt it on a fone where spel check some how wil not work. so i u wan to know more or dont understan drop me a line en i can skype u. my speaths is waaaaay beter en my typing

[@NeatCrown]

Rob Bates One thing: there was no "center/centre" of the big bang. It's looking "back in time". If We were at the edge of our observable universe, we'd see more background radiation if we would look in the direction of Earth. But the big bang, at the same time; is everywhere. When you align an older particle with the location of the newer particle in expansion of the universe, that particle is the centre/center of the universe. (Minutephisics has a video about this) Jiggles were gravitational waves, as clumps are... clumps of plasma. They existed for a longer time than jiggles (my hypothesis, anyways). If you have a glass of warm water, and produce a wave, the wave will subside before the water cools. The way we'll measure the polarization will (probably) be with polarization filters.

[@Stevo1361]

This has been a FANTASTIC few weeks in science. Major advances for science in many many arenas, from this BICEP2 experiment, advances in cancer prevention, to the new COSMOS series. It's all been very reassuring to see science is alive and seemingly well, SCIENCE PUSHES BACK AGAINST ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM.

[@UristMcTubedwarf]

we are always getting closer. soon supernatural things will have no more holes in science it can fill.

[@IceMetalPunk]

Nope. People constantly move the goalposts. We can never know EVERYTHING, so there will always be holes. And ignorant people who are too afraid to admit there are things we don't know will, instead of searching for the answers, make up their own and call it "supernatural". Sad, but true.

[@UristMcTubedwarf]

IceMetalPunk no more major holes at least, like the beginning of the universe or origin of life.

[@Sildaris]

The one problem with that is while one can explain the workings of the universe, one cannot discern the purpose of the universe through science. Also, the origin of life is in strong debate at the moment, as people (secular scientists included) have realized that the current macro-evolution/origin of life by chance theory is quite nearly impossible, from the impossible formation of the first cell, to it's impossible survival, to it's impossible duplication, to it's impossible jump into multicellular functionality, in addition to the complete lack of fossil records indicating that such changes did occur.

[@UristMcTubedwarf]

humoingat how can you be sure the universe even has a purpose? your second paragraph btw is complete bullshit, evolution may be called a theory, but its as verified as gravity and cells by now. we know it happens, period.

[@IceMetalPunk]

humoingat Firstly, why does everything need a purpose? Secondly, if your life needs a purpose, why does that have to come from somewhere else instead of your own interests and passions? Thirdly, unless you can supply some peer-reviewed studies for that entire second paragraph, I have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

[@humoftheradiator]

Thank you, MinutePhysics. Thank you BICEP2! We should be celebrating physics instead of speculating why or who.

[@GamerCainey]

I just got home from a polarization phenomena laboratory. We used quarter wave plates, polarizers and a Sodium lamp. To determine the Slow and Fast axes of our quarter wave plates. Best part was eating after doing that frustrating eye straining stuff for 3 hours.

[@TheRealTaco87]

So will we have a theory of quantum gravity soon?

[@brandenjames2408]

just because we have proof that its quantum, we cant have a full theory yet because we still dont know enough of the details, we just know its quantum.

[@NautyEskimo]

Branden James but this does give theorist a lot more to go off of and now can start forming better theories because this area of physics now has data and evidence to back up any quantum gravity equation that someone will come up with .

[@TheRealTaco87]

Branden James What do you think having a theory of quantum gravity will do for the world? Will it lead to new technologies that are super sci fi right now?

[@brandenjames2408]

NautyEskimo yes, of course TheRealTaco87 not sure on the technology side of things, but i do know it will have modal what occurred in the extreme earliest time after the big bang, which cant be done right now because without a quantum gravity theory, our laws of physics dont work in that time period.

[@NautyEskimo]

TheRealTaco87 i dont know but maybe if we can figure out what is actually interacting together to cause gravity then maybe we could manipulate it and get anti gravity

[@easementh]

Even though you never left... Minute Physics is back!

[@MoneyWins]

This is incredible, well done Henry :D

[@PigeonLaughter01]

Thank you for this, I had read a few articles about this study but neither of them explained how it proved the existence of gravity waves. Wonderfully succinct video once again.

[@Ubeogesh]

wow this is hard to comprehend

[@altSt0rm]

Sorry, you have it wrong at 0:12. Reflection at a dielectric surface with greater refractive index results in polarized light regardless of input polarisation (could be random as with sunlight). It does also depend on the angle, see Brewster's Angle.

[@UTEEPster]

Finally a great explanation of why this discovery is such a great deal!

[@TempestTossedWaters]

So gravity is quantum too. Was anyone surprised?

[@NautyEskimo]

eli nope you still got super symmetry too!

[@DivinePenguin00]

Yes because Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are fundamentally incompatible.

[@XavionofThera]

Will Ross Atleast they are when it comes to gravity. And the fact that gravitons really explain alot less then space-time fluctuations. Luckily alot of doubt has been cast on this "find".

[@domvasta]

why haven't you issued a correction, seeing as the BICEP results were retracted?

[@SIMKINETICS]

The more we know, the more we CAN know!

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Very good video!!!

[@kurtlarch]

and where is the bigbangs antimatter?

[@astrom47]

Kurt Lercher I think you showed us.

[@kurtlarch]

astrom47 hope so. 30 years thinking about it. I don't know bang in a bang or however. but now walk on...if physicists wouldn't have found dark matter I wouldn't got this idea.

[@gonzaloglz88]

I think I finally understand how it is that we can actually see the CMB. I didn't understand that the CMB is a remnant of a particular time in the development of the universe and not a snapshot of the big bang itself (as it's often portrayed.) What I still don't quite understand is the difference between space expanding (inflation?) and the expansion of the early plasma. Did space expand first and then the plasma expanded/cooled into this space? Or was the early plasma dense and hot because it was bound/constrained by the size of the early universe? Please help me understand!

[@FelkniaMusic]

The big bang ? More like the "everywhere stretch" !

[@PeterStellenberg]

What are exactly jiggles and clumps ? Still, it's a good video that sums it up pretty well, but I didn't really understand what were those besides some gravitanional waves and density fluctations. I would like some further explanations from someone, please. Thank you in advance, whoever you are, I'll give you a cookie.

[@naruto9561]

I agree! It seems interesting! Please make a second video on this? :)

[@Narcissist86]

You got it - the density fluctuations are clumps, and gravitational waves are jiggles.

[@PeterStellenberg]

***** Exactly ha ha

[@StubbornProgrammer]

Looking forward to confirmation of this finding! Exciting stuff!

[@TheCh0senOne]

I know you think you explain, but...

[@IceMetalPunk]

The Big Bang occurred. Light that was bouncing off plasma there escaped as the universe expanded. The light that bounced off it before escaping was polarized in varied amounts and directions, the variations due to gravitational waves. We've found that light, with its variations, and have therefore confirmed the existence of gravitational waves in near-Big-Bang times. It also allows us to analyze those variations to learn more about those waves, which occurred millennia before the currently oldest-analyzed time.

[@TheCh0senOne]

First of all, it was just a joke. My point is what you say. The video explains it in an awesome way, but uses terms common people (including me, in most of them) don't know.

[@TheSLK66]

So, is this enough to assume that the graviton must exist or that at least unknown particles form space-time and that gravity is an average of the interaction of these particles as suggested by the theory of thinking of gravity as thermodynamics?

[@isodoublet]

Came here expecting minutephysics to be wrong again, wasn't disappointed.

[@ApostateltsopA]

When were they wrong before? Evidence or it didn't happen.

[@TempestTossedWaters]

I would like to see where he's been wrong.

[@CrystalsRandomVideos]

Hannu Marijarvi He was wrong when he predicted that people would like "Explained in: 9.999 seconds". ;) I really did enjoy them. However, I have yet to find any real evidence that he was wrong in a video.

[@michanmy]

Make your own science videos then, I'd like to see you do a better job.

[@Narcissist86]

If you're trying to look smart, or hell, just want to be RIGHT, or just want damn attention - I mean, that's what you want, right? - it'll help to point out which parts are wrong. But you know, maybe that's too much work, or requires too much knowledge.

[@rwz]

Was waiting for this video to help me understand it, as always, thanks for posting!

[@JonSebastianF]

Your slower narrating tempo was very very helpful! Keep that up :)

[@MrSixPack5228]

oh sht i remember this from general physics 2.

[@Dgfrmxon]

I have the hardest time with the 45 degree angle part. I've read and written a good deal about this myself, and have gone through most of the content in the paper. It is said that the 45 degree angle is relative to the hot-cold direction. And this is produced due to passing through gravitational waves. Yikes. This is troublesome, because the gravitational waves were produced by a mechanism distinct from the density fluctuations themselves. The first polarizing mechanism mentioned is clear. This is due to the thermal properties of the gas around the time of last-scatter. That's abundantly clear. It should be expected, and it's already been measured. Good. But now, getting into the B-mode fluctuations of the particular type the experiment was interested in... why would the gravitational waves systematically bias the polarization relative to anything to do with the density fluctuations? This is the big difficult part. The paper said that it looked for an l=10 mode of the B-mode. But this doesn't seem to be consistent with what the video is saying. AFAIK, the experiment was searching for a pattern that was independent of the scalar fluctuations. But maybe I'm wrong about this? I may have to ask around elsewhere now.

[@DemoniteBL]

I don't understand a single word. :)

[@franshakvoort6874]

I'm 15, not a native english speaker, and I seem to be the only one on KZbin that understands these videos... ???

[@DemoniteBL]

Handige Harry I'm 15 too and I normaly understand way more of these science videos than my classmates. They're like 'What the hell is he talking about?!'. But I just have no idea what this video is about. :D

[@deathscastile9308]

XxDemonitexX It's about science! Can't find a better explanation than that without sounding pretentious... :(

[@DemoniteBL]

DeathsCastile To be honest, it's actually not about what the video is about, it's more about MinutePhysics. Idk, I kinda can't follow his videos. All other science videos I have seen were understandable enough for me.

[@nikgokuhil]

We might've discovered one of the conclusive proof of existence of Big Bang, proving the theory to be a real fact. The results are to be confirmed but things are looking positive. Read the description and follow the links under BICEP experiment. After is what this video is explaining to you would become clearer.

[@garyha2650]

Turn your sunglasses sideways while looking at light reflecting off of a car hood for example and if they are polarized they will screen out more and less as you turn them, light that was polarized one way was absorbed by the surface and the other reflected.

[@TerrorJesus]

good point. Great lateral thinking!

[@projectbaum]

Disappointing, how seemingly all of the misunderstandings of the big bang theory have come about from what they chose to name it.

[@IceMetalPunk]

I recently visited the Hayden Planetarium (Neil deGrasse Tyson's turf), and in their space show, Dr. Tyson implied that the name was actually given to it by its detractors. So it was meant to belittle the theory, but then the name stuck. Similar to the "God Particle" nomenclature for the Higgs boson, I suppose.

[@projectbaum]

IceMetalPunk Huh, interesting. I didn't know that, for either case. It does make a lot of sense, though. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[@jamespisano1164]

That's neat stuff. Fascinating that we can "see the beginning" of our universe.

[@MichaelSmith-ub6pd]

Hey... This was kinda disproved.

[@darrenanimatic9675]

"light is a wave" Photos: am I a joke to you?

[@cosmosgato]

Evidence gravity is a quantum effect is a big deal.

[@Balmung3688]

OH MY GOD!! Thank you. I finally understand the red and blue picture I've been seeing everywhere. And by "understand" what I mean is I am a little less confused. Thanks a lot.

[@nunya1738]

"Enabled us to see 380,000 years further back in time towards the big bang than before, where we found a picture of God sneezing". Just kidding. Agnostic here. No offense to anyone.

[@WGandH]

380 000 ? srsly ?

[@nunya1738]

W G H Not sure if you listened/watched the video (believe some discovery here got them 380,000 years closer, however they figure such things).

[@WGandH]

Nun Ya ohh sorry then. I must have not listened carefully

[@nunya1738]

W G H No worries, W G H...and I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything...I just didn't KNOW if you wondered if I thought scientists thought, or just myself, the Universe was only 380k years old, which would indeed have deserved an, "Are you SERIOUS?" PEACE

[@WGandH]

Nun Ya hahahha :D ok then :P

[@ashishsram]

I have a question. The earliest light which we can see is from 380,000 years which is the CMB. Now we know there are jiggles in it, but it is possible that jiggles could have been created at anytime during this early 380,000 year time span. How do we know that it was created during the first 10^-43 secs after the Big Bang? We can prove gravity is a quantum mechanical phenomenon only if we are sure that the jiggles were present in the earliest stages of 10^-43s after the Big Bang when the universe was this tiny spec.

[@locouk]

So, in conclusion.. It has nothing to do with god?

[@Monty-in-gumboots]

Well, assuming God can't Jiggle?

[@loftylazerus3007]

Not at all :) the big bang doesn't address Why, only What happened. Science can list the rules of matter, but isn't equipped to answer Why the "rules" exist to begin with without ascribing it to nature itself (aka mother nature, aka god :) now you guys that have left 3d space time and know everything, may start slamming me Now :)

[@TempestTossedWaters]

Lofty Lazerus "the big bang doesn't address Why, only What happened." Yeah that's because science is actually honest and limits itself to what can really be even known.

[@LilDevMeister]

Lofty Lazerus Ok, I'm no big physicist and I don't have a Ph.D or anything, but I'm going to try and use logic for "why" more or less. Maybe there is an answer already but you just haven't looked it up yet, but I'm going to just guess. So bash me if I'm wrong, but I'm just taking a stab at it and not claiming it's fact or anything. I would like to say it would be like survival of the fittest, in a way. Which laws of physics worked out best and didn't cause chaos or didn't contradict the other laws? That would be my best guess. That the laws of our universe were set at the beginning of our universe the way they are because they all work with each other and don't disturb the other laws and didn't cause chaos upon the universe at it's beginning. I may be completely wrong but I just felt like giving it a shot. Please correct me if I am wrong or say something if you think my guess was idiotic.

[@loftylazerus3007]

LilDev Meister Pretty good :) (so evolution for particles :) who knows. That was the point of the post to begin with. btw.. I don't go to church. I'm just amused by the arrogance of humanity. What we know is an atom on a spec of dust in a UNIVERSE of information :) and yet some cry "there is no God, I'm smart enough not to need one" Personally I am a fan of the Holographic principle, which posits that we are just a simulation running on a computer, something humans could easily pull off in a couple thousand years...(the dude at the keyboard becomes god :)

[@zukodude487987]

I yearn for new discoveries like this! Thanks so much!

[@markeez2373]

Let me get this all straight. The God of the universe writes a book. Its the only book in the history of the world to last as long. In it he picks a people and says he will preserve them. Even though these people were kicked out of their homeland multiple times for sometimes hundreds of years at a time. They still speak and write the same language and were given their land back everytime. Do you know that no other people anywhere still write and speak the same language after they were taken from their land even once. And YOU SAY YOU WANT MORE PROOF? Evolution is not facts thats why so many people don't understand go ask any scientist to prove anything about evolution. He won't he will tell you it is just a collection of bits and then put into theory. NO FACTS. If you want to free yourself from the cult of evolution look up "In The Beginning" by Walt Brown. Balls in your court, go on blind or get the opposing side of evolution. You will find you have many many more problems with evolution once you start honestly comparing real facts. Or at least you can have an intelligent conversation instead of "give me a reason to believe in some deity" or "how old do you think the earth is" and "Darwin was cool"

[@brandon13980]

Im sorry, but i already free myself from the cult of Christianity.

[@zachburke8906]

*I will be editing this post a few times to include more information, I will put "edit number"(in bold) and anything after is that edit* for anyone who reads this book please check the negative reviews on any website(amazon has some great negative reviews explaining some of the "facts(many tell half stories or are strait up lies)") do not read a book and instantly accept it as true without understanding that they can tell portions of stuff and leave things that contradict it out(this is why a lot of reviews are good). study not just the book itself but the claims themselves heck you could just yahoo answers it and you could get some more true stuff. *edit 1* here is a statement in an article(link below) showing a few things about the author of this book showing first he wont accept someone who can accurately show him something he says is flat out *WRONG*, it also shows he is not really qualified technically to be making many statements he says "Brown says that his "contract" is a mere "statement of agreement" (I won't quibble over terminology) and asks, "What's wrong with that?" My main objection is to the odd credentials requirement. Brown states that I myself, a graduate student in philosophy, would be able to debate him only if I "team up with a scientist, a science professor, or a person with a Ph.D. in a technical field" (Brown, 1989d, p. 36). This requirement allows for someone with a Ph.D. in, say, computer science to debate Brown, while a holder of a master's degree in biology would not make the grade-even though the latter's degree would be more directly applicable to the subject at hand. Moreover, restricting the opposition to holders of doctorates minimizes the number of potential opponents, since such people are less likely to have the time or desire to debate Brown, who does not himself hold a degree in a field directly relevant to evolution (his Ph.D. is in mechanical engineering)." (link) ncse.com/cej/9/2/further-examination-research-walter-brown *edit 2* I have not fully read this but the writer seems to know what he is talking about(I think you need to scroll up when you first open the link) he may be completely wrong I would still continue research after looking through this www.amazon.com/review/R2XNHME0KCHEEB/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1878026097#wasThisHelpful

[@ivandamico93]

Are you a creationist? I think people have the right to believe what they want, but im an evolutionist, and i saw your post. So do you believe that a being just waved his hands and spoke some words and everything in the universe came into being? Im not making fun of you or anything, but id love to hear how this works. Reply welcome if you wish. Ivan

[@jwalker8278]

Ps: y'all never answered my first question.

[@sa612136]

"Cult of evolution?" I think you should re-evaluate your outlook on science, unless you want to live in ignorant bliss. I assure you, the theory of evolution is firmly based on the _fact_ of evolution.

[@unison_moody]

Thank You.

[@devyp2theizo]

Is it bad that when i heard the announcment , I thought to myself "I'll just wait for minutephysics to explain" ?

[@mtrltoolman]

in the holy quran there is a story about the big bang and the creation of the universe and the earth you shauld know about it.

[@shilosinjari4474]

which surah? please!

[@mtrltoolman]

shilo sinjari surah al anbiya ayat 30 , surah fussilat ayat 9~12, and there many ayat in other surats.

[@naturallypedro]

last video : how light bulbs work new video : how the cosmos began

[@highfructosefun7503]

My science teacher was telling us about this yesterday! :D

[@asdasdasdasd7483]

what? O_o

[@5Dcat]

I don't understand a single bit of the video but I enjoy watching it.

[@markeez2373]

God is having good laugh at our great human ingenuity. I think the problem with all this type of science is God created all of the things we will discover. Its like the game of monopoly; if you took out the rules the game would be pointless but, with the rules it is fun. However the game writer could have gone in many different directions with the game regardless of how the players feel. The writer or designer of the game decides what rules YOU get to play by. God designed the universe not with the rules we have to abide by. He designed it however he felt like it. Most likely in ways we will never understand. I just don't understand why anyone thinks the earth is that old. We are finding out more and more things change way quicker faster than anyone thought they did continually making the earth much younger all the time.

[@Dorky_Designs]

Why couldn't the universe be that old? God created everything in 6 days but who said that one of our days is the same as one of God's days? What arrogance some people have thinking that anything in their life is equal to that of God's. And who said he didn't create the universe by creating a singularity induced big bang? And who said he didn't create life in 1 of his days by creating microorganisms that were allowed to evolve into complex creatures over millions of our days?

[@supkiddo1]

Show me one thing that proves the earth is as young as you think it is.

[@jwalker8278]

The bible does.

[@jwalker8278]

Show one thing that proves it isn't.

[@HiddeLycklama]

Prove that the existence of a god is any more likely than the unproved existence of any other entity.

[@josav09]

I find awesome that a million years is nothing in Universe time but still 0,0...01 s defines such a change in how the Universe works. Thanks for this news-like videos!! (I get all my science news this way XD)

[@pct87]

this video is full of lies, 149 seconds is not a minute. how could I ever trust again.

[@Volvary]

You are wron-- You son of a... You totally got me.

[@narutoxpein98]

***** follow his new account called morethanaminutephysics coming soon XD

[@gromm93]

You mean one minute, 49 seconds? That's where the video stops explaining physics and starts promoting the author's other videos. Which, coincidentally, is still under two minutes. Meaning that it is a minute, singular. For large values of 1.

[@Musicdudeyoutub]

Huh. I always thought it the "my-noot" minute, not the unit of time.

[@gaynorperidakis8094]

To Ernie Dunbar: 149 seconds = 2 minutes, 29 seconds!!

[@greninjafire7369]

It's strange that a KZbin channel is better then my own school at teaching me :p

[@StudioWiklund]

In the Audible ad, is that the same Andy Weir who did Casey and Andy, a.k.a. the best webcomic ever?

[@zarkoff45]

More explaining of the basics behind the new discovery about the gravitational waves left over from the big bang. For more detail there will certainly be a lot more than you can read coming up on your favorite science blogs in the next few days.

[@pauljs75]

I wonder if this polarization aspect had some effect on chiralty in molecule formation? (And much later on the "preferred" molecules for life.) I'm neither a chemist or physicist, but I know light affects some chemical reactions, so why not?

[@liketheduck]

Thank you. Always glad to learn from you!

[@kostasmetal7]

Well done BISEP! Good Job!

[@SamuelJFord]

You must have worked all night on this, thanks :)

[@Zlopras]

finally someone was able to explain this to me, I was waiting for 2 days

[@jaydunsmore050897]

Need more videos, watched them all

[@watchingponies]

Um.. I'm happy there's a replay option :) Thanks for trying to get this inside my peanut brain.

[@nachannachle2706]

This video should be after the "Science, Religion and the Big bang" episode in the Universe playlist. And yes, the gravitational field is most awaited, but probably won't be evidenced until another 50 years. In the meantime, I will be watching MinutePhysics...

[@Micklemoose]

Thank you, that was actually the first explanation of this that has made sense!

[@afrotonder]

Awesome vid! do one about gravity/quantum physics!

[@ineedmoneysp]

Another great video. Thanks for the great info. Love these videos

[@sheepos9036]

This is a great channel! There's still much to discover in the universe

[@alanjs1]

How about a video on what makes sticky things, well, sticky? Great videos by the way. :-)

[@StormwaterIsOneWord]

It hasn't been peer reviewed yet so don't assume it is fact quite yet. Google and download the paper the team published and check out the figures and abstract to get a bit more info about it. Although the evidence is very strong according to the co-project leader of the BICEP2 team. Regardless this is a huge thing and gets mankind quite a bit more knowledge about where and how we came into being. And of course, that is always a beautiful thing. Thanks MinutePhysics for getting on this rather quickly. =]

[@Yonkage]

Pfft, yeah, okay, sure, nice; wiggles of light and stuff. Did you guys invent time-travel yet? It's almost 2015... need that flux capacitor thing going pretty soon.

[@peterstrand735]

Thanks for that , it should help many interested people understand

[@MooImABunny]

hey! a contrabass jam! I missed those :)