Big Bang in an infinite Universe

How the Big Bang can be reconciled with the possibility that we live in an infinite Universe.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.

[@Insertnamesz]

These videos are both a work of art and science. I especially like the slow-ish pace of them, as they allow people to think about what was just said, and even guess as to what might come next. I always learn a lot from these! Sharing with my physics colleagues :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Insertnamesz / Punocchio Thanks for that really great compliment about my videos. I am glad you like them, and I am glad that you like the pace of the videos, as this is something that some people complain about. And of course, thanks for sharing the videos with your physics colleagues.

[@1ucasvb]

+Eugene Khutoryansky No, man. Most videos are too fast. Educational videos have to be slower paced. People are just restless these days. Keep it up.

[@b00gi3]

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky The pace is always perfect ! If people think of themselves as amazing geniuses who can just smash information quickly into their brain constantly and comprehend and retain all of it on first sitting / reading, they should read some solid text books at their own quick pace, rather than watching videos anyway. I feel fairly sure these videos aren't meant to substitute for textbooks, but are just a different kind of aid to understanding. I feel like a good fraction of what these videos are about is taking time to visualize these often quite abstract and theoretical concepts which are often expressed in heavy math terms. Cheers , keep it up . Amazing stuff.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

In case you have not already seen them, I also uploaded several other videos in the past several days. As always, for each video that you like, you can help people find it in the KZbin search engine by clicking the like button and writing a comment. Lots more videos are coming very soon. Thanks.

[@paradoxicaluniverse]

Eugene Khutoryansky What is time? What are we measuring when we measure time? Do you have a video that explains that?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Andrew Millar No one presently knows the answer to that question for sure, and for now, that remains more of a philosophical question. But, I can make a video that addresses what we presently know about that topic.

[@paradoxicaluniverse]

Thank you for your reply. That would be great. Because in my naive understanding all I can see time as is as an abstracted construct by the measurement of change in a stable recurring pattern which you can break down into equally sized spaces/intervals - like the moon around the earth or the earth around the sun.(1 day = 1 interval) Then the smaller the intervals the more accurate we can use time(more like a verb than a noun) by relating some other event to the clock that we have constructed. Other than that in my mind time does not, or cannot exist. I'm probably missing something vital in my attempt to understand "time".

[@kd7jhd]

Eugene Khutoryansky Thank you for all these great videos. I watch them all to better understand the universe I live in. I'm sure you have been asked this many times before. Who does your voice overs? I'm interested to know who it is or what method you use to generate these great voice over tracks. Thank you for you time and consideration.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Dallin Bastian The narration is done by Kira Vincent. She is a friend of mine who is a professional voice actor, and she has starred in many cartoons and animated movies.

[@tabamal]

A truly infinite Univers was also infinite at the time of the big bang, and it had everywhere a quasi infinite density. It is like the real number line: No matter how you squeeze it, it remains infinite.

[@KingSolomon199]

Exactly, I'm glad you get this! :) I just hope that something good comes from us understanding these things lol...

[@nikhilnegi9446]

Genuine idea💎💎💎

[@darthkenobi66]

but wouldn't it takes an infinite amount of time instead of 13.8 billion years?🤔

[@johnnythreefour2902]

This still doesn't explain it for me. The whole video was showing that space is expanding between points. Fine. Then you casually say say at the end there are infinite points that are expanding and don't explain how there are infinite points. Like in your line example you say imagine a line of infinite points then show them shrinking back into a single point with 2 clear end points merging. Well if it's infinite how are there 2 "bookend" points?

[@aidabit7554]

I think Jackson Fever misunderstood you entirely. The video was indeed "casually" assuming that there are infinite points, and your issue with that was why/how there are infinite points. However, the point of the video was not *that* space is expanding between points or even that there *are* infinite points in the universe. The main argument with the "infinite points" thing was just to show that *if there are* infinite points, this doesn't contradict the big bang theory or an expanding universe. Nothing here was proven about the actuality of whether the universe is infinite or whether the big bang theory is correct. Just that it's possible for both to be true at the same time.

[@aidabit7554]

Hi, Jackson Fever. I apologize, I didn't mean to insult you. Everything after the first sentence of my comment was in reference to Johnny's haziness about the method of explanation, not your comment. In fact, I thought (and continue to think) you seemed to understand and provide a good explanation of why the video was doing that, but I was (indeed, with somewhat callous wording) under the impression that your explanation missed Johnny's particular issue with that part of the video.

[@aidabit7554]

By the way, Johnny, if you read this -- I wanted to add more about that bit of the video: It's not that are are actually two end points in the infinite line. It's just that if the distance between points goes to zero, then even if there are infinitely many points, they all coincide and "look" like one point. It's just hard to "show" concepts like infinity in a physical way. Even the concept of a "point" is hard to show, because it's supposed to be a 0-dimensional object -- that which has no breadth/thickness etc. The flow of logic in the argument is sound, but the visual component has to be taken with a grain of salt in this case.

[@batorerdosi2682]

This is not the only problem. If this explanation is correct, the existence of Big-Bang cannot be concluded from the red shift. This is the other (reverse) aspect of the problem you mentioned.

[@gorkemvids4839]

Also she says "at any time universe's volume is distance*infinity", but at bigbang this size must become infinity*zero which is undetermined

[@yoMURVY]

Best videos to watch when you're high as F.

[@WiillZero]

Murvy ikr 😂

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: kzbin.info_video?ref=share&v=g1WU35KxLrA You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.

[@simoputtonen2799]

Thank you Eugene Khutoryansky for the amount of uploads! Are you planning on making a video about String Theory sometime? :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Simo Puttonen I would eventually like to do a video on string theory, but there are many other topics I would like to do videos on first, so the string theory video might have to wait a while. Thanks.

[@stevehouston5650]

I'm glad there are people like Eugene who can understand the universe. I like the videos but mostly I'm confused.

[@aducksecho]

You are one of the few that discuss the topic in detail. I wager infinity to be true

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

aducksecho Thanks for the compliment about how I discuss the topics in detail.

[@PETERLINNAH]

The narrator is perfect. I love these videos.

[@AlterNateHeaDacHe]

I love this channel! Thanks for your videos :D

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

AlterNateHeaDacHe Thanks. I am glad to hear that you love my channel. Lots more videos are on their way.

[@josepvaz8827]

Cantor in Cosmology: maybe the key to understand the Universe. Beautiful video as usual.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

josep vaz Thanks for the compliment about the video. I am glad you liked it.

[@josepvaz8827]

Eugene Khutoryansky what you say about Time, would be very interesting.

[@Fatortu]

Mind blown. I thought I understood this paradox. But it is actually much simpler than I thought !

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Fatortu, glad I was able to help.

[@benplus2053]

3:31 "the number of points is infinity,and infinity multiplied by any non-zero number is also infinity" This statement doesn't clarify anything. 2:35 "If we go back in time all the way to the big bang,this distance decreases to zero" No it doesn't,because if you indeed have an infinite line,and divide it by any non-zero number it would remain infinite line.

[@RoboBoddicker]

What about infinity divided by infinity? That's essentially what's happening. You're treating the animation as if all the points are expanding from and contracting toward a single central point - and that **would** be impossible with infinite points on a finite time scale, because each point would have to "wait" for the one before it to reach the center. But that's NOT what's happening. In the animation (and in the real universe), *every* point is expanding from or converging on its neighbors independently. Say it takes 5 seconds for a given point to converge into a single point with its two neighbors to the left and right. If every point converges like that simultaneously, then after 5 seconds the infinite line will collapse into a single point. So the line may be infinite, but there are also an infinite number of transformations occuring simultaneously.

[@benplus2053]

@Copydot Actually in the animation all the points are moving to the central point,which is the only one stationary with respect to the background grid. We could also see the beginning or the end of the line, which also contradicts the notion of infinity. Now try and imagine (because i couldn't) similar scenario to the one in this video:infinitely many points arranged in an infinitely long line in infinitely large universe. Then the convergence begins,5 seconds later,as you explained,the infinite line collapses into a single point.Where would that single point end up, considering the universe remained unchanged?

[@RoboBoddicker]

hategoogle plus No, that's the thing: EVERY point is the central point. No matter what point you focus on, it looks the same. That's why galaxies are accelerating away from us at the same rate in every direction. As for "where" the line converges - that's undefined. When the distance between each point drops to zero, the question of where you are on the line becomes meaningless. Though I don't claim to understand it 100% myself :) I think it's a bit more intuitive to think of the universe as being the surface of an infinite sphere rather than a line. When the sphere collapses, it converges on a point, but that point itself isn't located in the universe.

[@abrakadabra6591]

how can we be on the surface of an infinite "sphere" if spheres have dimensions i.e. is finite?

[@benplus2053]

Aristotle made a distinction between actual and potential infinity.I wish this was at least mentioned in this video,it would have prevented lots of confusions on the part of the viewers. Basically what it comes down to is this,as long as the universe is increasing in size at the rate that we can not reach its boundaries, it classifies as a potential infinity,so the scientists call it infinite. Most of us on the other hand when confronted with notion of infinity think on Aristotle's complete or actual infinity.

[@gotaudio]

Wow, you have really been cranking out the videos lately! I was shocked to see this one because just a few days ago I was going to ask if you could answer and animate this question. But I'm afraid your explanation didn't answer it for me. Consider when the universe was the size of an orange. Would you say that thing did not have a center? If so, please explain it in a way I can understand. If it does have a center, please explain how time and distance produce something from that orange sized thing that does not have a center. You rock!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

gotaudio, if the Universe is infinite, then it has been infinite ever since right after the Big Bang, and it was never "the size of an orange." That is what I was trying to illustrate in this video. Although the distance between all the points was zero at the time of the Big Bang, the moment the distance between two neighboring points is greater than zero, if we have an infinite number of points, we end up with an infinite Universe.

[@KLCS-cv4ef]

Please make videos on gravitational lensing

[@EarlLedden]

Big fan here. In your graphic demonstration the middle ball stays stationary, while the balls on either side move away. The existence of a stationary middle ball is confusing if not contradictory ( dare I say antithetical?) to the explanation. It's a 2d graphic; does the issue go away in 3d? But doesn't 3d assume a center point?

[@TheChrasse]

Thanks for the video, Eugene. A pity that it was so short, though.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

***** That is one of the trade offs about being able to upload several videos per week. For example, my video on Maxwell's Laws of electromagnetism was 50 minutes long, but it took me three months to make.

[@TheChrasse]

Eugene Khutoryansky Personally I prefer the longer videos over the shorter ones, since you go more in-depth in the longer videos. But it's your channel and your choice, and I support you either way!

[@TheBlundert4ker]

I'm still confused with respect to the idea of taking an infinite set of points and collapsing them into a singularity. If there are an infinite number of points, wouldn't there always be more points not a part of a singularity? In other words, infinity divided by infinity is considered indeterminate in mathematics, not one, so can we really say that an infinite number of points can form a singularity? I don't see that.

[@Francesco_Armillotta]

The point in big bang is that the distance of two points is, reversing the time, getting always smaller. In this sense, any point in universe distant as you wish from you now, in the past was close to you with a distance small as you wish. In cosmology, you would say that the scale factor of universe, which gives you the physical distance between two randomly choosen points, eventually goes to zero in the past. That moment we call Big Bang

[@bread6494]

@@Francesco_Armillotta here me out. Big Bang was fake and was a small bang

[@DermMicro]

Right, the video should have shown the points getting smaller and smaller until they were no longer visible, but you knew there was still an infinite row of them. Then, when it expands, its not all coming from a single point. Instead, they would all grow at the same times and increase their distance from one another. Eugene's videos are usually really good with the visuals, but this one did not clear up the big bang center point issue it set out to explain/ simplify.

[@bread6494]

@@DermMicro no one really knows. The meaning of life is survival

[@Francesco_Armillotta]

This time this wasn't very clear...I think the best example which helps us thinking of universe expansion (and so the concept of Big Bang) is still thinking galaxies on an expanding sphere. This way brings natural the fact that "every galaxy sees all others getting further", and most important (which is not underlined in the video) that Big Bang occurred EVERYWHERE. However, as usual, thanks for your video

[@LasseJ789]

So, before big bang, all elementary particles, or points, was gathered in 1 point, at 1 place. Then, in the first frame of expansion, the universe grew from 1 point, to infinite size, because an equal amount of distance between the infinite amount of points was created.

[@johndelynn2940]

Great videos !! You make the analogy at 1:20 to think of all the points in the universe being arranged in an INFINITE line with the distance between them increasing/expanding. Then if we go backwards in time the distance between the balls decreases to a single point. If the line is infinite, how can the balls decrease to a single point ? Saying that the space and the matter that is expanding was created at the same time as the big bang is like guessing how many atoms are in the milky way and you only get one guess. If we could travel much faster than the speed of light, what would all the galaxies be expanding into after the big bang ? What lies ahead ? If the universe is an expanding sphere, flat or any shape at all, wouldn't there be an outside ? My uneducated guess the size of the universe is pi in all directions or infinity. There is no end. Cheers !

[@Naijiri.]

How do you get from zero to infinity without passing a finite number (and vice versa)

[@j9dz2sf]

The way I understand it is that this initial point became our *visible* universe, not the entire universe. There may exist other points around this initial point, and perhaps this initial universe was also infinite from start.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

That is not the way it works. I go into detail about this in my video "Infinite Universe?" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3fHl6Wqr9Rnibs

[@davidg.1818]

Assuming the universe is infinite in size, I'm curios whether it is possible that at the big bang the universe was also infinite in size (perhaps a smaller infinity), and the exponential inflation is only meaningful within a finite space, otherwise the universe has remained infinite (or perhaps it has grown to a different size infinity)? Does the inflationary cosmology need a zero size universe at the big bang (or at the origin)?

[@nphiro5030]

An infinitesimal (non-zero number) when multiplied to an infinity can give a finite answer.

[@infinitivecuriosityu6585]

Thanks a lot for such amazing video .🥰🥰🥰😍😍😍

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Glad you liked my video. Thanks.

[@momon1828]

if you have a big bang you have a start ask any runner

[@OzanYarman]

The infinitely far-away points in the given analogy would need to converge at infinite speed given the presumed space-time contraction as one goes back to the past for there to be a localization of the Big Bang event for a universe with infinite material content. There can, in fact, be no reconciliation between an infinitely overstretched cosmos and a begining to space-time unless one accounts for the "surreal conjecture" that space-time expanded infinitely fast for an infinite amount of objects in 13.7 billion years.

[@vedantsridhar8378]

This is exactly what a singularity is, an infinitely dense point where the distance between two points is zero. However most astrophysicists don't believe in singularities, they say a singularity is actually an error in the mathematics of general relativity and stuff like string theory and quantum gravity even suggest singularities don't exist at all.

[@maunil108]

Thanku for making so nice videos and KZbin channel.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.

[@Antoine7881]

Another great video Eugene. Your videos would pop up on my subscription page every other week or so and its like finding $20 in an old jacket pocket. 3 in one week? Don't spoil us lol.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Antoine OBannon Thanks for the compliment about the video. I am glad you liked it. I will now be trying to make videos much more frequently than before.

[@Antoine7881]

Eugene Khutoryansky nice! Keep them coming. I got into learning about space early last year and in July I read something on the Internet and somebody mention relativity in the comments. So I looked it up on KZbin. I watched your video on Theory of Relativity and was blown away. I remember thinking: how come I didn't learn this back in high school? What else is out there that I haven't learned about that is just as fascinating. I watched it five times in a row. I've been hooked on relativity and space ever since.

[@WilliamSkafast]

The finite line doesn't help too much. As the distance decreases, the amount of points in the same space would grow proportionally. When the distance is 0, however, all infinite points must collapse to a single point. The line doesn't get smaller until it's time for the collapse, and then it happens instantly. Where the collapse happens will depend on perspective. If the camera moved as the distance decreased, everywhere would look like the sphere we're looking at.

[@MrDRS79]

Thank you for so interesting videos! What was before the Big Bang by the way?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+MrDRS79, no one knows what we before the Big Bang. Thanks for the compliment on my videos.

[@Sylox95]

+MrDRS79 That's like asking What's North of the North Pole. It's a question that cannot be answered. If there was something here, all information would've been destroyed during the Big Bang.

[@IABITVpresents]

So that's why would I hate the Big Crunch that traps the previous universe's information forever xD

[@asterixgallier8102]

I just noticed: Infinity (I will refer to it as inf) divided by inf is 0, because inf/inf equals inf*1/inf equals inf*(1/inf) equals inf*0 equals 0. inf*2 = inf*5 is the same as (inf*2)/inf = (inf*5)/inf because of algebra. So we know inf/inf=0 and can replace the infinities in (inf*2)/inf = (inf*5)/inf with 0 like that: (0*2)/0 = (0*5)/0 Then we essentially try to do 0/0, but that doesn't work, but if we do inf/inf we get 0 and if we do inf/inf we can aswell replace inf by 0 and we get 0/0. That either means I made a few mistakes (most probably) or one can't do inf/inf or math is broken. I think the first two options are true...

[@viniciusfernandes2303]

Thanks for the video!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@iramnaaz9310]

really great video.....

[@vedantsridhar8378]

So basically in short, our universe was infinitely dense at the big bang and space didn't exist. But then this means the size of the universe before expansion was 0*infinity, which is undefined. Doesn't make sense, unless the universe was zero in size at the big bang, and suddenly became infinite.

[@navjotsingh1418]

Very good explanation.

[@LaureanoLuna]

In the images, I still see a finite universe (just one ball) expanding in finite time into an infinite one. Not very helpful. There is something missing.

[@PiznesPiznes]

Thank you Eugene!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Tim Kurb You're welcome! Glad you liked it. Thanks.

[@MyWorld-sx2tq]

Amazing! Could you please make a video about cosmic microwave background radiation?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I will add that to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.

[@cocoarecords]

Brilliant work as always

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

cocoarecords Thanks. I am glad you liked it.

[@Theawesomeking4444]

the problem is that infinite times 0 is undefined so how did it start as a single point?

[@vedantsridhar8378]

This is exactly the biggest question in astrophysics. Maybe the universe was zero in size.

[@replicaacliper]

That blew my mind.....

[@rchot84]

So what your saying is that if the universe is infinite before the big bang Matter-Energy was infinite with no space time separating any of it. Then the big bang only introduced space time.

[@matzehero3371]

Nice Video as always :) but i have a question. If Theres an infinite amount of those balls Theres an infinite amount of mass. Dies that mean the density is infinite too?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Matzehero There would be an infinite density only at the moment of the Big Bang. Since density is mass divided by volume, at any time after the Big Bang the density of the Universe would no longer be infinite.

[@matzehero3371]

Eugene Khutoryansky oh right, thank you. And how is the density of a singularity infinite? Is the room infite small? Thats what i never understood :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Matzehero No one really knows what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, but the theory is that all the mass and energy of the entire Universe was concentrated in a single point with zero volume. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the Universe is infinite, when we calculate the density by dividing mass by volume, we get infinity because we are dividing by zero.

[@matzehero3371]

Eugene Khutoryansky thank you. So if you reach the Planck'sch energy and make a black hole out of it its because the Volume is considered to be 0?

[@4Liberty4Justice4All]

Eugene Khutoryansky I am not sure I understand what you are stating. If you divide by zero, you get "undefined". Perhaps you are stating a theory because the consensus seems to be the universe has a determined amount of matter and energy (even if we don't understand well such things as dark energy) since neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed. And that matter/energy is still expanding (into what we did not know). Also, I believe infinity to be something real in math but not in reality since it would lead to contradictions (such as Hilbert's hotel). Just trying to clarify if you are stating one theory or if you believe this is in fact what is happening. I might politely disagree if the latter. Anyway, love your videos so please keep them coming.

[@joemasters2270]

I love the narrator's voice.

[@LasseJ789]

"The number of points is infinity." But infinity is not a number. Besides that, I guess that in the first planck second of the universe, the universe must have grown from a single point, to at least the diameter equal to the number of points in the universe in diameter plus the same amount of plancklengts.

[@nah922]

If I got it well, at 2:50 the ball is supposed to be the whole universe we have today right? And what about the space around the ball, is it just for illustrating or it means something?

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

I think the ball means the singularity, that is, if you look back enough in time you'll get the state of the universe before it "came into existence" as we know it today. If you look at wmap or something like that on Google you'll see the state of the universe up to a certain point already in iits evolution, but we can't see further than that. Thus, I guess, we've to allow mathematics to take over and assume it was a single point. Note that using here "at one point in time" is deceiving because our language(s) cannot exactly underline that there was no time at that state. If I'm wrong maybe someone will correct me.

[@nah922]

I think that our brain is "limited" to understand concepts like emptiness (empty is different from the black space or black matter, because black is something), infinity, the absence of time(no time) etc. Maybe mathematics can describe this concepts but anyway it's a little difficult for us to understand. I'm talking for a biological limitation, like dogs, for example, that can't distinguish colors. Maybe after thousand of years we will evolve and we will be smarter, but till than, the only thing we can do is to suppose things.

[@rstriker21]

So what I got from this is the universe went from 0 to infinite instantly?

[@dromulus18]

+StrikePlaysGames if we life in an infinite universe thats correct. if you look from another prospektive, in mathematics zero behave often similar as infinity

[@Sylox95]

+StrikePlaysGames If it's infinite, then it was always infinite, even during the Big Bang.

[@jake1996able]

StrikePlaysGames The problem is, that at t=0 there is a singularity which renders any discribtion impossible. This singularity of infinite space time curvature at the instant of zero time is the current big problem cosmology has. And the irreconcilablility of quantum mechanics with GR. At any other time than t=0 in an infinite universe, the universe will be still infinite and every point would seem to be a centre point.

[@alialiali6663]

was universe self conscious? and how can nothingness create something there has to be a BEING which is independent of everything , absolute in power , intelligent , outside of this universe and an Untreated Creator.

[@mr.meeseeks5127]

It's simple and complex at the same time. We as humans experience everything in quantity, space and time. That is our biological nature, and that is how we've formed mathematics to fit within this perspective. If the universe is infinite, then plain and simple, it is infinite. We know matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so the theory this video is trying to explain is that we cannot grasp the concept of infinity because our finite minds cannot process it. If the big bang is a reoccurring phenomena then all the matter and energy in the universe is simply recycled. Over and over again infinitely. Basically it is everywhere and nowhere. Since matter is drawn together, everything condenses closer and closer gaining speed as it comes together. It then condenses into an infinite singularity, so dense and immeasurable by our current mathematical concepts that there are no words to explain or describe it. The intense pressure and heat results in a massive explosion, propelling matter and energy in every direction at an immeasurable rate. We may be so early in the stages of this particular big bang that we will not witness the universe slowly condensing back together again. We are simply witnessing the expanse still left over from the momentum of our big bang. Think of a bomb. Now think of that bomb exploding in all directions. Now freeze and reverse. Think of the bomb slowly coming back together, gaining speed along the way. Once it is a bomb again, think of it exploding again. Do this infinite amount of times and thus the universe has always existed. The matter and energy may very well be constant, but the recycling of it is infinite. Every big bang forms different galaxies, different planets, different life. It all expands to a certain rate before coming back together only to explode again with different outcomes. Same building blocks, infinite possibilities. Some universes may even be reoccurring. We look at time as a concrete factor, the the infinite big bang theory sees time as infinite, something we simply can't describe or mathematically prove right now, or maybe ever. It's just a theory, but an interesting one.

[@guitarheroprince123]

Why did you assume that infinite balls can be placed in the universe. Doesn't that automatically assume that the universe is infinite?

[@BrokenSymetry]

He does assume the universe is infinite, but only for the sake of this video. He wanted to show there's a way big bang can create an infinite universe.

[@plasmaballin]

Yes. The point of the video was to show that it's possible in an infinite Universe, so obviously, it has to assume an infinite Universe.

[@ScarletEdge]

So before big bang it was still infinite, now there is just more infinite?

[@mibrahim4245]

I always said these things can't be thought of except by an engineer, and finally I knew he's an electrical engineer... Regards...

[@Jasonificatiation]

well that really cleared that up 🤔😐

[@sedevacantist1]

There is a convoluted use of terms here; an infinite universe and a center of the universe. Obviously, if the universe is infinite then it does not have a center. If the visible universe started from a single point then it does have a center, that is from within the framework of a finite material universe within a theoretical infinite universe. Thank you for your consideration.

[@ThePisha55]

Should be on Discovery channel or TLC!

[@vitakyo982]

Do you use a specific software to upload your videos ?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+VITA kyo, if you are asking how I make the 3D animations, I use the software "Poser." As for uploading, no special software is required, as this is simply done through KZbin.

[@vitakyo982]

Then i wonder why youtube turns my videos into a crap while some others have full HD 60 fps ...

[@peterwilson484]

Bad analogy. Space is continuous. There are an undefined number of points between any two points, and so on ad infinitum as we zoom in. You cannot separate/isolate any two points with some spacing between them(This only works for discrete space).

[@jonathanborrelli2749]

So in the moment of the big bang the size of the universe was zero and a fraction of time after this size became infinity? Another question, why in 2:48 the size of the universe is not infinity? There are infinity balls so why this "ovaloid" is finite? I don't think I understood

[@tiagofranca2660]

Great video as always

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Theenerd ジェームズ Thanks. I am glad you liked it.

[@physicsouruniverse2798]

incredible

[@mist273]

I'm not sure if this video is ok. We all know that real numbers are infinite in any infinitesimal interval. Does this imply anything about the universe being infinite when the distance between you and one of the other points tend to infinity? Maybe I misunderstood the misunderstanding about the concept though lol

[@rodrigoappendino]

Eugene, are you a physicist? Or you are just a curious person? What do you think about the idea that time cannot be infinite to the past and it necessarily has a beginning?

[@simoputtonen2799]

Eugene Khutoryansky I'd also liked to know are you physicist? (Do you have a phd?)

[@shirshak6738]

@@simoputtonen2799 he is professor from texas.

[@nikhilnegi9446]

Shirshak how do you know??

[@GammaStyleGaming]

@@nikhilnegi9446 google

[@truegamer3164]

What is the name of the background music please tell !!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

All the music in this video is from the free KZbin audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Fur_Elise_by_Beethoven Road_to_Moscow

[@89wmoss]

this helps me understand

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Bill Moss That's great to hear.

[@truegamer3164]

What is the background music name plz tell

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The music in this video is from the free KZbin audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Fur_Elise_by_Beethoven Road_to_Moscow

[@generalvegetal3049]

the universe is too big that as far as we're concerned it doesn't matter if the universe is infinite or not

[@enotdetcelfer]

3:24 - Text in video: "The number of points is infinity,"; Annotation: "Note: This is not saying that there are an infinite number of points in the Universe" That's self-contradictory. I understand the space between all points thing, but if anything the first form should have been an infinite solid. A point with infinite energy existing before the existence of spacial dimensions would be equivalent. ie if a point had infinite momentum space, there would be zero spacial space, and as the point cooled uniformly, it would gradually convert parts of it's momentum space into spacial space. But you don't mention that when the universe was a point, there was no such thing as space around it and that essentially as the universe dissipates it's energy, it's converting momentum into position. I feel like if you mentioned that, you wouldn't have the problem with infinity... but as long as you show a point around which there is space, you've defined and end, or extent, to the point which necessitates finite space. Anyway, interesting video, but I think you're missing the main argument if you don't address the fact that space didn't exist when it was a point and that space only occurs within the universe, not the universe occurring within something else.

[@sohaibahmad8767]

Aren't we begging the question here? You said the size of the universe is the number of points multiplied by the distance between them, and since the number of points are infinite, any number multiplied by it will result in an infinite size of the universe. But this doesn't explain how the number of points can be infinite. Thoughts?

[@matycee]

before it decreases to zero, going all the way back in time to the Big Bang, it decreases to caterpillar then worm, snake and on to zero

[@ELrachab]

Thanks for arabic subtitles

[@TheACG22]

I don't think the case is closed on this one... I can understand how this works from a closed universe, where the center of mass of the universe is virtually outside the universe (in the hypersphere). But what happens to the center of mass of an open or flat infinite universe? Does it just disappear? and How? Clearly there was during the singularity at time = 0. So what gives?

[@KingSolomon199]

It requires a new paradigm, a new way of looking at the BB. That the universe at the time of the BB was infinite in size already, yet infinitely dense as well. Mind blowing, yet that is how this is reconciled and makes perfect sense.

[@MarkusOdds]

If the big bang was caused randomly by quantum fluctuations in vacuum and if space has an infinite size then there must have been an infinite amount of big bangs in our universe. The galaxies of the other big bangs are just too far away to observe them.

[@RickB500]

Yes and no. The term "far" makes no sense! Time and space emerged with the big bang. And this too solves the problem of some here, how some infinitesimal small can produce some infinitesimal big

[@user-ms5hz3sd3r]

great

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks.

[@kinddiamond6315]

if the universe is infinite with a big bang history then it was infinite also before the big bang. big bang just added more space to infinity. it makes not sense that infinity was once 1cm long for example

[@LasseJ789]

I think the assumption that the universe is infinite, is a bit off, since no matter how big we imagine the universe, we can always put that size into a function of graham's number or tree(3). No matter how gigantic a universe we imagine, it will always be almost zero, compared to infinity. Also nothing else in the universe seems to be infinite, everything seems to be finite.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

You may want to watch my video "Infinite Universe?" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3fHl6Wqr9Rnibs

[@LasseJ789]

@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you. It's one of my favorite videoes. Watched it many times. Especially with the playspeed at 2x the visuals and music are simply splendid.

[@XtroTheArctic]

OMG!!! 4 videos in a week :) :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

***** And lots more videos are on their way very soon.

[@TheIranicHumanism]

I guess if all the points in the universe arranges in an infinite line, decreasing the distance between the points to zero as shown here would be a paradox because its more like merging the points into each other given that a point has no length or width which means turning the infinity to notthing. No reality. Just imagination. You know, points are imagened and in reality just illustrated with false dots. If points have any amount of volume then infinite of their volume with zero distance in between them results to infinity. I guess like the relativity theorem there feels a curvatury in your theorem explained above in which you just continue to move on a linear path.

[@blacktigershearthstoneadve6905]

Ask Markus Persson. He knows something about infinity. :) You see anything that you did not observe basically does not exist... or rather exists in a super-position state. But you can't observe the entire infinity... only a tiny part of it. So essentially the observer (you) also limits the size of "real" universe by his observer range. It does not matter what happens outside of this range, because there is nothing there yet. Like in Minecraft game. So the Universe is not technically infinite, it is "potentially" infinite.

[@kiryan3402]

The lady from how it’s made

[@danielkerr4100]

How it's made has a guy do the voice where I'm from

[@leggolan266]

You can't MAKE something into infinity. You can't MAKE infinity bigger. Infinity is infinity. Therefore if something is getting bigger, at any given moment, there is a value of magnitude. WHICH means that it is not infinite. You can possibly say that the universe is infinitely expanding, BUT there is no evidence to suggest this or otherwise.

[@svendsoemod]

infinity * 2 boom

[@stanleystanleystanley7246]

According to the video, the universe was infinite at any time after t=0. According to all the documentaries I've seen, the universe was the size of a proton at time X, and the size of a grapefruit at time Y, etc, etc. How do you reconcile the two?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

First, I do not actually say in the video that the Universe is necessarily infinite, just that it is "possible" that the Universe is infinite, and that this does not contradict the Big Bang theory. In response to your question, I believe those figures are just referring to the section of the universe which is presently visible to us, and how large this particular section was if we go back in time. Even if the Universe is not infinite, no one knows the actual size of the universe.

[@stanleystanleystanley7246]

Thank you, that's what I figured. But then, what about other statements, like "E=mc^2 predicts that matter and antimatter are created in equal quantities, so its puzzling that there is more matter than antimatter in the universe"? Does that puzzle also apply only to the visible universe? If so, why is it a puzzle? If particles and antiparticles are created in equal quantities in the entire universe, then statistically one of the two will dominate in the visible portion of the universe. The one that dominates is labeled "matter", and the other is labeled "antimatter". What's so puzzling?

[@ilovesunny8887]

what is the piano song?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The music in this video is from the free KZbin audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. Fur_Elise_by_Beethoven Road_to_Moscow

[@Cryr213]

But how do we know that the universe can be seen as an infinite line of points?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Cryr213, we don't know if the Universe is infinite. I am just pointing out that having an infinite Universe, and hence an infinite line of points, is consistent with the Big Bang Theory.

[@janjohnson7071]

If there is infinity after the Big Bang, there should also be infinity before it, into negative infinity !!

[@gaimz1855]

Wow

[@MrGodofcar]

If the universe started at a singularity and is expanding, there MUST be a spacial point where everything started expanding from.

[@peterwilson484]

Nope. There is no center of expansion. The singularity is infinite in spatial extension, however scale factor of FLRW metric is 0.

[@MrGodofcar]

@@peterwilson484 No, singularity means infinitesimal point. Infinitesimal is different from infinity

[@peterwilson484]

​@@MrGodofcar infinitesimal is numerical sequence that tends to the limit but it will never reach it. Singularity is this limit, it's not a number.

[@MrGodofcar]

@@peterwilson484 What is flrw?

[@peterwilson484]

@@MrGodofcar en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker_metric

[@anishkumar-qb3pm]

How you make video by which application

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I make my 3D animations with "Poser."

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

By the way, someone just submitted Hindi subtitles for this video. If this was from you, the translation for one line was missing near the beginning of the video. Once the translation for this line is added, the subtitles can be approved to appear. Thanks.

[@zathrasyes1287]

Nice, but what caused the Big Bang?

[@MKHsma]

So infinity is expandering?

[@boxlord616]

While the universe IS expanding, the distance between galaxies is not growing.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+EvilLaugh, the distance between galaxies is increasing.

[@boxlord616]

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Lemme see... *30 years of looking at space later* I guess they are, but if they are moving, how can we see them if they're travellng faster than light?

[@RickB500]

@@boxlord616 Don't forget, they sent their lights many billion years ago, when they had not reached the speed of light in relation to us. But of course, if there are infinite galaxies, most of them (an infinite number) we will never see. We only see a finite number of course (otherwise the sky where not dark in the night). The ratio of finity vs infinity is? Thats the problem of the singularity on a large scale!

[@User-vd9lu]

its turkish march by Mozart

[@anom3778]

At 2:10 wouldnt you say he cheated because the infinite points were not infinite?

[@innerlocus]

Big problem here with statement @:13 all the mass in the universe did not start at the Big Bang. The plasma gas after the expansion with gravity formed the first Stars which after billions of years exploded in their violent death dispersing heavy elements that formed new stars with the first planets. And billions of years latter with gravity formed the first galaxies. Also the galaxies are not moving apart, but space is being created between the to a point stationary galaxies. FYI

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

innerlocus, the creation of the heavy elements in star explosions is simply the transformation of mass/energy from one form to another. In reply to your other comment, yes you are correct that space is being created between the galaxies, hence increasing the distance between the galaxies. One can say that it is not appropriate to refer to this as galaxies moving away from each other, but I think that this is just a matter of semantics.

[@innerlocus]

Eugene Khutoryansky On second comment. If each spear was placed on each black square in your illustration, and new squares started forming on the grid without the spears moving from their original square this would illustrate the point of continued expansion.

[@csdr0]

Your theory assumes that space at t=o is already infinite. It means that at t=0 we have an infinite universe in which at any given point in space of that universe has an infinite density. When t>0 the density at any given point of that universe becomes finite. So we have expanding universe which is already infinite in spatial dimension before its beginning. It imagines a universe with an infinite density at every given point before time begins and it was like that in its infinite past.This theory does not make any sense. We have cyclic universe if it is infinite in time but finite in space. It is difficult to imagine how an expanding universe can now be infinite in space but finite in time. The discovery of an accelerating universe debunked this possibility because if it was infinite in the past then this acceleration in size could have happened in the past given the infinite opportunity to do so and the universe could have been ripped off in the past. On the other hand It will take an infinite time for an expanding universe with a beginning (finite in time) to reach infinite spatial dimension. If an expanding universe is infinite in time it should have been very big already and we should only be seeing our own galaxy at best and at worst the universe should have been dead by now due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But if inflation is right then the universe can be infinite in time going to the future but not infinite in time in the past since the BGV Theorem postulates a beginning even for an inflationary universe and even for a multiverse resulting from the never ending inflation. Thus we can only imagine an expanding and inflating universe having an ultimate beginning in the past, will have the potential of becoming infinite in the number of universes it will create given an infinite number of years in the future. But since the end of infinite time cannot be reach at any given time in the future the universe will never attain infinity in spatial dimension and even in number of universes it will the have created.

[@luckyyuri]

but what about 2:47 ? you show the ends of an never-ending chain of marbles. i know you're right in the explanation because i've listened to cosmologists telling the same thing but you're wrong in trying to visually depict such a thing, because it cannot be done,

[@Saltshaman]

But you assume we have an infinite amount of "points", which we don't. We have an finite amount of matter

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Leonim I am not assuming that we have an infinite number of points. I am just pointing out that even if we did have an infinite number of points, this would not contradict the Big Bang theory. An Open Universe (which contains an infinite amount of matter) is one of the possible solutions in cosmology. Though, of course, no one yet knows for sure which solution is the right one.

[@CheCheDaWaff]

Leonim What makes you say there is only a finite amount of matter?

[@Saltshaman]

If it were infinite amount of matter, the gravity to this matter would also be infinite! Also, the dark energy / matter ratio would be 0 so the universe wouldn't expand

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Leonim The gravity would not be infinite, due to the fact that the density of the Universe would not be infinite. It is the density of the Universe which goes into determining how the Universe expands. And we would have a finite density, even if we had an infinite amount of matter, since the volume of the universe would also be infinite.

[@CheCheDaWaff]

Leonim I'm not convinced that would be the case actually. In a universe of finite volume you're absolutely correct, the gravitation would necessarily be infinite somewhere. However, consider the case in which the universe has an infinite volume. Now the story is rather different. Here we could have an infinite amount of mass, since said mass can be arbitrarily far away. Remember that Gravity decreases proportionally to the square of the distance between two objects. For this reason we could keep adding new matter to the universe, and while this will always increase the total gravitation, it does not mean that said gravitation increases without bound. (What follows is simply for the sake of illustration, don't bother reading if you don't want to / already understand my point) For example, let's consider a 1-D universe, in which the only kind of object is a point mass, which we will say has a mass of 1. Now, suppose there are 2 such masses, at a distance of 1 from each other. We can calculate the force on each mass, namely F = GMm/r^2, which in our model is: F = G. Now, let's consider 3 masses in a line, each separated by 1 unit. We can calculate the force on one of the edge masses. F = G + G/4. Ok, how about n masses? Here, F = G * SUM(1/r^2) where r goes from 1 to n. So we can see that although F increases as n does, it does so by a smaller and smaller amount. In fact, you can prove that the SUM term never exceeds (pi^2)/6 (feel free to ask for clarification on this point), but instead approaches that value without ever reaching it (nonetheless getting arbitrarily close). So what can we say about the case with infinite masses? Well, F = (G * pi^2)/6. Which is less than infinity!

[@mohammadbozorgnia9175]

Your content is very good and informative but the music selection is not a good match for the content.