Biggest Thing in the Universe - Sixty Symbols

[@Sluggernaut]

It's always such a pleasure to see someone so pleased with their own field of study like this. The passion and excitement is really contagious.

[@GPCTM]

They just can't believe the lucky they are every time they receive the monthly check. And they are right.

[@Chad_Dabal]

I could listen to these guys all day. In fact I do fall asleep to their lectures w my earbuds. I love how passionate they are and have made this their life's work. I dont understand how this doesn't fascinate everyone. To me this is the most critical subject in life to learn about!

[@huntergoddard9307]

3:40 The observable universe is not 13 billion light-years across, it's 93 billion light-years across. It's 13 billion years old, but that's not its size.

[@Kneedragon1962]

Yes, that's a bit of a headache. Especially when tv science shows harp on about how what we see at 10 Bil lighyears away, happened 10 bil years ago, so telescopes are a time machine - yada yada yada... Words like 'Inflation' are tossed around, but the significance is not really explained. Either the edge of the universe went away at rather more than C, or we have a logical issue... What would help, would be a brief explanation that because the space has expanded, the speed of light was (relatively) a damn site faster then... The numbers don't add up because the 'number plane' has expanded rather sharply since. And we still have 'inflation' because they still don't add up, even allowing for that.

[@Dannys99887]

Kneedragon1962 Yes, expanding space cosmology introduces all sorts of confusion among non-scientists about light travel time, astronomical distances, and the expansion of the universe relative to an observer on earth during the travel time of light from very distant galaxies. But in this video, a SCIENTIST at 3:40 said "bearing in mind that the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across...." This is just totally wrong on absolutely every possible level. It cannot be rationalized based on any possible assumptions about its meaning. It's hard to believe that the scientist who said it has any in-depth knowledge of cosmology.......or for that matter, simple basic astronomy.

[@Strider-Ragnarok]

Thank you for this.

[@DANversusWTP]

Josh Baker The rate at which galaxies move away completely depends on their position. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, so think of an X graph becoming a 2X graph, and then a 3X graph and so on, changing every given unit of time. X=1 and X=2 are moving apart much more slowly than X=1 and X=4. So a galaxy trillions of light year away would be moving away from us faster than light, which is legal because it is space itself that is stretching.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I don't know how big the universe is. It might even be infinite in size. There is theoretical evidence that it is certainly bigger than 60 billion lightyears. But I know that light travels at the speed of light and it travels 1 lightyear per year. So if the universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old, the observable part of the universe cannot be bigger than 13.7 billion lightyears. Sorry.

[@davidlbaird]

This video was wonderfully edited, interleaving two interviews, that complement and explain each other. I understand this newly discovered structure and its orgins, and I feel I can share the excitement of the physicists explaining it.

[@paul9813]

I feel like Ed would be a great first year teacher, Breaks things down and truly loves what he does!

[@Silvah777]

A big blown up projection of just a funny little wobble in a field. Wow.

[@Sebach82]

Love it.

[@tucatnev123]

I've started to teach maths in 1999. That glare is the brief moment when a tutor is proud for the student. The next step is looking for the right introduction for next-step challenging problem.

[@rickrose5377]

I love these guys. A lucid explanation of some fundamental and very compelling cosmological issues. For the inflationary epoch of your mind.

[@Rami-ll2bq]

its a pleasure to see the best of humanity that we unfortunately lose as we grow up, inquisitiveness, curiosity, thank you, we need more people like these

[@adamh6094]

Ed’s reaction to Brady’s final comment at the end 👌🏻

[@EL-mg9st]

Thank you Thank you Thank you! This stuff is fabulous. There's never a boring moment when you can watch a Sixty Symbols video.

[@AnimationB]

I did a speech for my Communications class on this discovery. Thanks for showing it to me!

[@skinnyofdoom]

These videos are brilliant! It's the very example of how complex and cutting-edge science should be spoken about when addressing an audience of non-experts! Well done folks. keep up the good work.

[@alexisrodriguez5268]

"The ultimate elephant in the room." This is extremely quotable.

[@89allstar89]

That was the best comment chain i've ever read, a good back and forth argument before you came in and crushed it with logic. Well Played.

[@Kavetrol]

They should make a video on light travel distance vs. light travel distance plus space expansion.

[@GJames007]

I really do enjoy listening to both of these professors.

[@ijcmartinez]

any updates on understanding of this structure since 2013?

[@Trandunz]

possibly try and read into the simulations they have been doing of the universe and the dark matter/galaxy "tubes" or "spider webs" that are poping out

[@ijcmartinez]

@@Trandunz Nice! First time I encountered this possible explanation. Appreciate the insight. Checked it out with some googled articles; esp. liked NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day on 2020 October 25.

[@tomktia]

I could listen to Mike and Ed all day!

[@dff1286]

I thought the observable Universe was over 90 Billion Light years across. in which case a structure stretching 4 billion light years across would not be terribly large by comparison.

[@jilgin]

DHF F Yes and ''The Universe'' (not just the observable universe, but the entire Universe) is believed to be even bigger and maybe even infinte...

[@Mwstmrlnd]

But that's not how you measure scale -- you have to measure the scale based on the largest known structures we can observe so far. It has nothing to do with the size relative to the observable universe. We don't normally see structures larger than 300 megaparsecs across, and the structure found in the study is over 1200 megaparsecs across, which is abnormal.

[@supersalty5856]

But how about the Hercules Corona Borealis Great Wall? Which is a structure which is 10 billion light years across

[@shawn563]

Super salty that structure wasn't fully discovered until the end of 2012. Perhaps after this interview.

[@Cashman9111]

@@Mwstmrlnd if the universe would be infinite then there could still be waaaaaaaayyy bigger things that we just won't observe, because we are out of their reach

[@frankbraker]

Love this show. It makes me want to see an interview with the paper's authors.

[@martinbondesson]

0:40 The ASMR is strong with this one.

[@davecrupel2817]

Professor Copland is a treat for weary ears. :)

[@mat5473]

Yeah not sure how that guy hasn't ended up in an Unintentional ASMR video yet.

[@Ionizationification]

Actually, this is incredibly meaningful and it contains tons of evidence of many things. It helps us understand the universe we live in, and even if we can't visit the objects that we see, it doesn't mean that they don't exist and shouldn't be studied. People spent many hours to make such an observation, and this is important, so don't minimize their efforts.

[@michamasny8238]

I would appreciate a word on time in this video. I'm guessing all of this stuff isn't stuck on a circle around the Earth so there are probably considerable differences in distance between us and various points on this thing. If the thing is about 4 billion light years then, unless the points of it are close to equidistant from the Earth, some parts of the thing we see will likely be a billion or two years older than others. It seems to me time should be a real factor here since things can change their relative positions in time, especially when they have lots of it. It's a pity it wasn't touched in the video I think.

[@Z3nt4]

That's a rather moot point, though. Even if you're just seing things that were there in the distant past that still doesn't change the fact that at any given point in time you only found those objects in a very specific location. If one of the quasars happened to be 2 billion light years away you would still need to have a few of them scattered all around the 2-billion-years-old sphere cut of the universe to preverse homogeneity, which you don't. If anything, the fact that over billions of years they all happened rather close to one another would strengthen the idea that there is something not quite ordinary going on in there.

[@ToddLewden]

Starmaker by Olaf Stapledon is all I keep thinking about. Fantastic SciFi read! :)

[@MartinB_Art_Design]

Very very off topic question, and I really love these videos. I haven't had much luck googling but does anyone know any youtube channels LIKE numberphile and sixty symbols that primarily focus on type and design?

[@2Sor2Fig]

9:20 I always wondered what got my professors excited and kept them doing what they do (being a Biochemist, one of mine was obviously doing cancer research. The other one was putting phosphorescent proteins into the brains of mice to control their neural systems, which is, hands-down, the single most badass sentence I have ever heard in my life [ think remote controlled mouse, but with more lights and proteins ]). Wish I'd listened to my chemistry and physics lecturers a lot more... the math guy was always interesting, no problem there. He used to wear the same red, hawaiian print shirt every day, had like 8 copies of the same shirt. Said it was because he liked the pattern. On the days we had exams he always wore a blue hawaiian shirt. Of all my lecturers, I remember him the most. Dr Copeland reminds me of him for some reason, which is where this whole thing started.

[@Schizopantheist]

light reaching earth from the edge of the cosmic light horizon has travelled perhaps 13 billion light years but of course the objects in that region have accelerated away since then. By convention UK believe astronomers speak of the light-travel-distance of an object rather than its 'real' (assumed) position beyond our light horizon. Hence the confusion, I think.

[@Schizopantheist]

*sorry i meant "by convention -i- believe"

[@ivarbaratheon264]

Idk he's clearly said the entire universe is 13 billion ly across and the structure is a third of the universe that's very wrong

[@rholdnr]

That is by far the best advice one could give, listen to this person!

[@eugeniomyles]

Looks like someone went to the Aspen physics conferences.

[@razordo]

"A big, blown up projection of just a funny little wobble in a field." Thank you camera guy. You made me understand this video with your perfect way to put it.

[@KauanRMKlein]

I savour these videos like delicacies of knowledge. Even If they are not as entertaining as Veritassium or Vsauce videos, there is something magical about these interviews. It's like when you know Led Zeppelin for your whole life, but then you across a vinyl record of Blind Willie Johnson.

[@MekazaBitrusty]

I just love all these videos you produce. Each and everyone of them full of fascinating facts and theories. Don't ever stop making them please. :-)

[@wishcraft4u2]

I'd like to imagine that they somehow power wormholes used by the oldest civilization in the universe.

[@Samrules888]

perhaps they saw that expansion was accelerating and that they would soon be disconnected from other parts of the universe. attempting to counteract dark energy failed so they harnessed it to build wormholes for instant travel to the parts of the universe that were moving away too fast for their ships to reach

[@imadgibbs9063]

**I originally posted in the longer version of this video @ **Biggest Structure (extended interviews)** ** Say what? At 2:30, Mike says "Bear in mind the universe is only 13 billion light-years across".. But it's not, is it? It's known to be 92 billion light-years across, or 46 light-years in any direction. Plenty of places to back this up www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/how-large-is-the-observable-universe/ www.quora.com/How-can-it-be-understood-that-the-universe-is-93-billion-light-years-across-and-yet-only-13-8-billion-years-old

[@sorenlily2280]

While the universe is 92 billion light years across, it is only about 13.8 billion years old. Thus light from the edges of the universe has only traveled 13.8 billion light years. Since information cannot travel faster than light, it is impossible for us to observe anything beyond 13.8 billion light years in any direction. Because of this it's not relevant to what they're talking about in any way.

[@Altorin]

Stuart Smith that's not even true though. The Observable Universe is the measure of the things that are close enough that we're capable of seeing them. That's what you're describing, it's just that space stretches in unintuitive ways. It's more then 90 billion light years across. There is no way to make saying "The universe is 13 billion light years across" correct. He made a mistake. That's ok though. People make mistakes.

[@Deuce1042]

+Altorin actually....you're wrong. In any direction you look you can't see any further than 13 billion light years away. That light took 13 billion years to travel to us and in that time the universe was still expanding. Theoretically, the universe is over 90 billion light years across due to expansion but you're seeing those most distant objects at the distance they WERE 13 billion years ago.

[@muijnckj]

Maybe what we are able to see is not far enough to see more than one of these structures?

[@reuzohvestioridecan1125]

"Pixelated sight"

[@ChrisTheGregory]

9:20 I love seeing scientists get excited. I remember back when Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter, and during some of the live coverage a scientist being interviewed yelled out "It's.... HIGHLY HEAT!"

[@KRAZY13omber]

Kind of funny seeing all of the children calling out someone far smarter than them(their google searches) for a slight miss spoken phrase.

[@digitcrusher]

An error is an error no matter who pointed it out.

[@IMOLDIN]

@@digitcrusher Perfectly said but can we have it in math

[@pureruckuspower2165]

@@digitcrusherdamn. Same thing my pops told me daily. But that was in reference to my birth.

[@CCuiu]

did not rly understand everything, but it is mind blowing and funny at the same time. thx for the vod

[@Phaeer]

I think you should link the extended interviews in the beginning of the videos so people who are interested doesn't have to watch the same thing twice.

[@TonzLanggoy]

i want to listen to them every day... :D

[@Chriscondra83]

I've been watching you for years now, I've even caught my American @$$ saying maths. All I have to say is thank you and where do I send the cookies I baked.

[@HewkiiMusic]

Am I the only one that has this raging phobia of gas giants, Jupiter in particular? When that picture of Jupiter popped up on the screen my heart nearly stopped, and even that when the picture is only in black & white. I guess it's the enormous size and perfection along with the lack of a solid surface that scares me the most.

[@Cosmalano]

There's no need to be scared of them.

[@HewkiiMusic]

I know, that's why it's a phobia, an irrational fear.

[@Cosmalano]

TheOfficialHewkii very true. But I must ask, if given the opportunity to say orbit Saturn, would you go?

[@HewkiiMusic]

electrocat1 Definately not

[@Cosmalano]

TheOfficialHewkii not even to help get over your fears?

[@bbbeto02]

For some reason I feel like the principle in all this is similar to the ring of fire on the Pacific ocean that creates all these paterns in a continuous line of vulcans and all because of the tectonic plates. So if you change the subject from tectonic plates to entire universes colliding maybe that's the result. But yeah, that's probably just a silly thought.

[@Athrun000]

Brady always ask the best question...

[@leoabrahamian3078]

Isn't the universe ~90 billion light years across? It's not 13 billion? And isn't the largest object in the universe the Hercules Corona-Borealis Great Wall?

[@jaineekparikh]

+Leo Abrahamian 13 billion is of the observable universe. The 90 billion is more theoretical than anything else. And the Corona Borealis Great Wall was discovered after this video was released.

[@KevinVanOrd]

+Leo Abrahamian Note the date on the video. The Corona-Borealis Great Wall was discovered in November of 2013. This video was published in February of 2013. I hope you don't expect even the best physicists to be time travelers!

[@ivarbaratheon264]

broken3260 no 90 billion is the observable universe

[@DeathBringer769]

+broken3260 No, even the ~90 billion lightyear figure is an calculated estimate for the OBSERVABLE universe. You can go look this up and double-check if you don't believe me ;) The estimates for the size outside that (the "unobservable universe") ranges anywhere from 250x that size, all the way to potentially infinity. No one knows for sure on that one.

[@PolarJoMcKay]

"Discovery of an implausibly LARGE structure in the Universe" :) ... awesome ...love this, love sixty symbols (you are rock stars of cosmology) and I thank you for making current cosmology more accessible. (As for irrelevant commenters I agree w others who suggest 'ignore' but add one more step - I use the you tube options and 'mark as spam' so I don't have to see those comments anymore - in ancient times exile and shunning were a communities most effective tool...imo)

[@Equiinox1989]

Ok, I know some people have already called this guy on it... but I feel the need to clearly address what exactly was wrong with what he said based on modern cosmology. At 3:40 the professor erroneously states that the projected LENGTH of the observable universe is about 13 billion light years across. The estimated AGE of the universe is about 13-14 billion years. It would then make sense that the observable universe should have a radius of about 13-14 billion light years, however space can expand faster than light (It doesn't violate general relativity if space itself expands faster than light). This metric expansion of space over time yields measurements of the actual size of the observable universe to be around 46.5 billion light years in radius or 93 billion light years in diameter. This is a very common mistake among laymen and entry level students, but I find it disturbing someone of this man's status would not be aware of this.... watching him make such a blatantly wrong statement and then giggle about it made me plant my face on my desk.

[@GrantE90]

I posted this reply in another thread, but it also fits your comment. TL;DR: The universe has a comoving radius of ~46.5 billion light years, but the actual size is far less important than age in regards to these large structures. the 13 billion light year figure is an easy yardstick. The structure in this video (Huge-LQG) is roughly 9 billion light years away. The exact size of the observable universe isn't very relevant for the explanation given, the figure of 13 billion light years (rough radius of our observable universe from Earth without factoring the comoving distance resulting from expansion) is just thrown in as a comparison for laymen. The comparison is simply used to highlight the implausibility of such a large structure at an early age in the universe. With an age of 13.82 billion light years, a distance from Earth of 9 billion light years, and an extent of 4 billion light years, we end up with an interesting situation. The structure is not gravitationally bound (unsurprisingly) and both ends are no longer causally connected. It would take 8 billion years for a perturbation (gravitational or otherwise) to travel from one end to the other and back again. The universe had only existed for 4.82 billion years when the light we're seeing from the quasars started its journey. This lack of interaction between the furthest extents doesn't mean its not a "true" structure, it just means it can only have formed from the magnification of a random fluctuation during inflation, a time where our entire observable universe was causally connected. Essentially, the 13 billion light year figure stated in the video is just an easily identifiable yardstick. The video wants to appeal to a broad audience, and its difficult to fully explain the comoving diameter of the observable universe within a 10 minute video without cutting some relevant content about the Huge-LQG structure. Come on guys, there are far more interesting points to debate.

[@JamesGormleyMusic]

I’m loving these videos

[@ossian1977]

The size of the universe gives me nightmares...

[@sliert]

Nice summary at the end Brady!

[@Stunit101]

Wow a video about my genitalia, how nice of you.

[@Memyselfandlazy]

Oh, the hole itself is not lighting up, it's just getting so big and powerful that the force it exerts on gases not yet passing the event horizon (the point of no return from a black hole) shine so very brightly that they produce that level of light.

[@eldritchinterface7481]

Just to clarify this for people, the universe is expanding FASTER than the speed of light. This does not defy the laws of physics.

[@crackedemerald4930]

It's a funny thing, nothing in the universe can move faster than light, but the universe itself can. That makes that some things far away are moving away from us faster than light can reach us

[@silverwaterbug]

I was wondering when you'd make a video on this, Brady. Interesting stuff. :)

[@ambujarind1991]

at around 3.40, he said the universe was 13 billions light years across. That's not correct, that's the age of the universe.. 13 billions years..

[@SonawanePravin]

+Ambuj Arind Yup.. the observable universe is around 96 billion light years in diameter.

[@Schizopantheist]

+Pravin Sonawane Agreed. But we observe it to be around 13 billion light years in diameter. The real size of the universe is not visible to us!

[@ambujarind1991]

No, it's not 13 billion light years that is visible to us. Actually, the observable universe is about 93-94 billion light years across. That is because of the expansion of the universe. If it was not expanding, visible part of the universe would be 26 billion light years in diameter, not 13.

[@Schizopantheist]

+Ambuj Arind Yes, I understand what you are saying but we cannot see light from 46 billion light years away, we can only see light from around 13 billion light years away. It's true that the objects that were around 13 billion light years away are now (we infer) around 46 billion light years away but we cannot actually see them there (how could we? the light has not had time to reach).

[@ambujarind1991]

Actually we can. Hence, the word observable. It is due to the expansion of space itself that we see light which is as far as 46 billion light years away from us. The light does not travel faster than the speed 'c', it is the expansion of space that enables us to observe such large distances. I hope this clears it up..

[@jaypearce6743]

It was really neat to see your excitement at the earliest moments.of creation

[@krisbean4064]

The universe isn't 13 billion light years across...

[@abhishekshah11]

exactly my thoughts.

[@rafaelrincon3109]

We don't know, right? Since we can only see the observable universe. We know that it has to be *at least* as big as the observable universe, right?

[@abhishekshah11]

***** but of course.

[@fuzlwuzl]

He means the observable universe itself is larger than 13 billion ly across, it's closer to 90 billion ly across. You're right that we do not know how big the unobservable universe is.

[@williampratama1670]

Adam Moke *over 90 billion light years across

[@truvak]

when someone tells you that there is no passion in science and the scientist are like machines, tell them to watch this guy @9:19 it is just beautiful.

[@noddwyd]

If this is real, and I'm assuming that everyone's assuming it is real, Is this possibly a sign of Type III or even IV Civilization, of a type of entity or entities that we can't even imagine at the moment? I think it seriously bears thinking about. I mean, what a monster...

[@General12th]

It's possible an intelligent entity or civilization assembled these quasars intentionally, but it's not the only possibility. Definitely cool to think about, but it assumes a lot more than the proposed explanation.

[@Mastikator]

We wouldn't be able to imagine them anymore than a single bacteria could imagine us.

[@KimStennabbCaesar]

Mastikator We can also only imagine what imaginings and fantasies any other species have, or other persons than ourselves too really. Who is there to say a bacteria doesn't have imagination? Not very plausible by how we perceive the world works, but basically impossible to disprove.

[@Mastikator]

Kim Stennabb Caesar "it's impossible to disprove" that I am not secretly Gandalf the Grey sent here to defeat Xenon the Space Overlord.

[@KimStennabbCaesar]

Mastikator Now THAT's a battle I would gladly watch! :)

[@nekogod]

The universe is actually approximately 90 billion light years across. I don't quite understand the physics, but it's to do with the expansion of spacetime itself. I think it's like what happens when you blow up a balloon, the surface stretches uniformly so say you had 5 dots on the balloon 1cm apart, dot 1 and 5 are 5cm apart, you inflate the balloon until they're all 2cm apart, 1 and 5 have moved at the same speed as the other dots but are now 10cm apart

[@Hobbit183]

You mom 😏

[@ProGamer907]

Fredde no u

[@Somerled_1]

Daaaaaamnnn! Got em!

[@MSL444]

I love how Prof. Copeland is explaining things. I honestly didn't even blink.

[@wwaqashussain]

universe in 13 billion light years across !! not correct

[@SparksThePhysicist]

+Waqas Hussain well it actually is

[@mllppoo56]

+Sparks The Killer no its 93 billion light years because of expansion

[@SparksThePhysicist]

Tom Orwell ahh i see

[@Liteg0]

+Tom Orwell Yeah that's what I thought too, so while 4 billion light years across is big, it takes up no where near as much space of the universe as they claim here.

[@iReGaming]

+Waqas Hussain Yes but the univerise has existed for ~13 billion years and we have no way of obtaining information about anything outside of that 13 billion light years and so they're causally separated from us. This 13 billion light years is what we call the observable universe, a slight difference from the Universe as a whole, but in the grand scheme of things it's the only thing that matters since it's impossible to interact with anything outside of it.

[@jomps1]

What I find fascinating is that within those supposed star systems hinted at by the collection of quasars is (probably) a higher likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life; at least, higher than anywhere else in the universe that we know about.

[@asdfasdfasdf771]

i really dont think its fair to assume the universe's sexuality pls dont misrepresent the universe

[@DemonXeron]

This, my friend, is a masterpiece. I like it very much.

[@maybeanonymous6846]

your mom

[@oceanceaser44]

Wow those 10 minutes flew by, that was a very interesting topic. I am interested in how you would determine that this "structure" was very unlikely to occur from a random scatter of quasars

[@mikefallopian3191]

3:42.....'the entire universe is only about 13 billion light years across'.....Fckn hell. Blatant falsehood. Who is this guy ? A professor or someone from building maintenance ?

[@beefcakepantiehoes]

Mike Fallopian when astrophysicists or astronomers say that the "universe" is 13 billion light years across they mean the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

[@BrownHairL]

But it isn't 13 billion lightyears, it's 93, because of the expansion.

[@mikefallopian3191]

Beefcakepantiehose....oh really, dimwit ? Because that would be wrong too. Maybe you shouldn't be speaking for astrophysicists.

[@ivarbaratheon264]

beefcakepantiehoes The OBSERVABLE universe is a lot more than 13 billion light years across

[@thirstyCactus]

Very well explained with a nice level of detail. Great video, thanks Brady!

[@DanijelDrnic]

I'd said that at CERN's experiments with accelerated particles missing half formula because I would assume that the approximately 3/4 of the speed of light, or that part of the pulse of light is actually the answer is wrong that A.Einstain have proposed. Photons have no weight because they lose their singularity are therefore 'massless'. Black holes are massless, and the accelerated particles lacked a singular part that gives them mass.

[@psitae]

Are there any new developments in this line of research after three years? There are many interesting questions that come from this paper.

[@thetarget]

This must be the most boring but interesting video I watch all day.

[@nekogod]

Assuming that it took 2 seconds to blow up the balloon that extra bit and if we'd done it at the speed of light it'd have taken 1s. You could say the fastest the dots could move apart is 1cm per second, however dots 1 and 5 moved 5cm apart in 2 seconds or 2.5cm in 1 second. I think spacetime works in a much more complex but similar manner which can explain why objects are further apart then the speed of light would allow.

[@1055boy]

Yes, you are correct. I was about to mention this, but it seems you've done it well enough. :)

[@andjelatatarovic8309]

I love your channel! Thank you!

[@blazebluebass]

Regardless of what he meant, I really adore the ´´only´´ in that quote!

[@ApotheriskTV]

Also try MIT OCW. It builds pretty much from ground zero through basic physics. After that, start checking the library. You would be surprised how much stuff is there.

[@joshsimpson7860]

(around the 3:41 mark) I may be mistaken but the observable universe is larger than 13 billion light years across - I've seen that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 93ish billion. I realize that it is that old, and this is not my field of expertise but I do believe I'm speaking of a well known fact. Again, my only aim here is to raise the question for a quick fact check. Great vid otherwise!

[@tristanbay]

Correct. 13.8 billion years is the estimated age of the Universe. But because it's expanding while the light is still travelling towards us, its radius is significantly greater than that. And even if the Universe wasn't dilating in either direction, 13.8 billion light years would be the radius, not the diameter like he's implying

[@Zarggg]

A leading line of thought is that "Noah's flood" was actually describing a real flood event that occurred five to six thousand years ago (not four thousand years ago) in the Mesopotamian region, based on the fact that other historical texts of that era describe a flood happening around that same time.

[@nicosmind3]

Ive only just subscribed to this channel but i friggin love it now. Been subscribed to Numberphile for a while now and been resistant to subscribing to this channel. Biggest mistake ive made in the last 5 years :P. I love science and i really love space. If anything i should have been subscribed to this channel and not Numberphile. Oh well. Glad im here now. Excellent video :)

[@brogorro]

same here dude

[@briandeschene8424]

nicosmind3 It's never too late to expand one's exposure to the wonders of science. Welcome aboard and enjoy the ride to enlightenment!

[@souravzzz]

You are correct, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe is 13 billion light years; which is wrong because the universe is expanding.

[@draginofwar]

Question: Is it a moving object?

[@bitodd]

Since those early photons were emitted, the space between us and the objects that emitted them has expanded, putting them ~46 billion light years away. So we can actually see farther than the limit of the speed of light would lead you to think, based on an odd property of spacetime.

[@isamu135]

I'm not saying that a designer can't exist, but the designer argument not only doesn't answer the question of how things are created, it brings a numerous other unanswerable questions with it: How did he do it? Where did he come from? Why did he do it? When did he do it? Did he do it alone? And also, if design: designer = different design: different designer? Multiple designs: Multiple designers? Nothing suggests a designer, yet there are natural explanations for how things are created.

[@B.A.Gondal]

"Gram-Schmidt Process" at 1:27? what is a Physicist using it for?

[@cagammon]

I don't understand yet I'm still in awe!

[@Pensnmusic]

My mind wasn't blown until the video tied together at the very end. Then I had to think about things for a while. I think I'm going to go sit down. Maybe in a different chair, in a different room.

[@StevenRayMorris]

great video. great interviews. so fascinating and beautiful to think about.

[@ooooljoooo]

Brady, can you please do a film about the bottom up and top down theories? Or have those been thrown away? I've learned about them when I studdied basic astronomy at the Univesity of Uppsala in Sweden but haven't heard about them much since.

[@TraitorVek]

Questions: a: Would you think that a black hole eats everything in it's galaxy? b: Do Black Holes form from Stars or are they completely separate? c: Are black holes made of atoms?

[@TraitorVek]

+TraitorVek atoms = also = maybe, electrons

[@dormirenonpotest]

+TraitorVek Answers (or attempts, more like. I'm not a scientist): A: No, objects would orbit around it, just as the solar system won't fall into the sun. *in a stable situation. If the black hole is moving way faster than the stuff around it, it might pull some larger objects in. B: They form when some of a stars mass collapses into an area smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. This only happens under certain circumstances, however. C: Probably not. I think that the fundamental particles would be ripped apart from each other.

[@TraitorVek]

So A: = Yes not No - You seem to be saying 'A' towards the end of your reply. So B: = You're saying all Black Holes form exclusively from Stars. You didn't answer my question (please read the question) So C: = "Probably" is not an Answer Glad you attempted my questions though. :)

[@gbizzotto]

I've been told all my life that recording a person's speech at parties give off unintelligible sounds. I've been told that the cocktail party effect only works live. However, at the end of this video, one clearly can focus on either mike merrifield or ed copeland.

[@mitchelljacky1617]

It is mentioned that the universe is 13 GLY across but I think he meant to say something else. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old and has been expanding for that long, but it has been expanding at all points in space, not just from our reference point. In addition, the expansion of space is nonlinear with time, and so we should expect to see that the universe has a minimum radius of ~13 GLY and really should have a much larger radius.

[@MrStickyPete]

I just wanted to tell you I gave you a thumbs up

[@MidnaZ]

i love this channel more than my life :P

[@Reptonious]

Yes, I believe that's what technically qualifies it as a structure - it's an object wherein all of its parts have a nontrivial gravitational effect on each other.

[@pirmelephant]

Why are there "North" and "East" at 5:56? How are those directions defined?

[@fordsfords]

It's interesting. I probably watched this for the first time 2, maybe 3 years ago. And at the time I thought, "wow, this is cool". Since then, I've learned a lot about astronomy and cosmology. For some reason I clicked on this video again, and now I think, "WOW! THIS IS COOL!" I love that having more knowledge makes the universe an even stranger and more wonderful place. To the person who thinks that understanding the rainbow makes it less mysterious and beautiful: you don't know what you're missing. :-)

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

This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light & time. Based on just two postulates: 1. The quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future unfolding photon by photon. 2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[@anke_a]

That sounds plausible. Thanks :)