Did The Universe Come From Nothing? Can Stars Be Alive? What's The Best Nebula? | Q&A 225

Could stars and planets be living organisms? Is LHC dangerous for the Earth? How do neutrino detectors work? Does the Big Bang suggest that everything around us came from nothing? What will happen if we create a blaåck hole on Earth? Answering all these questions and more in this week's Q&A.
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
👉 Ultimate Solar System
planetplanet.net/2018/05/30/t...
00:00 Start
01:03 [Tatooine] How does something come from nothing?
07:07 [Coruscant] Could stars be alive and conscious?
12:18 [Hoth] Is the LHC dangerous for the Earth?
15:26 [Naboo] What if we create a black hole on Earth?
18:57 [Kamino] How neutrino detectors work?
22:15 [Bespin] What's the maximum number of planets a star can have?
26:47 [Mustafar] How Universe Today changed over the years?
30:29 [Alderaan] Favourite nebula?
30:50 [Dagobah] What's the largest milestone we can live to see?
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
[e-mail]
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video.

[@GreatAwakeningE]

One of the most enjoyable episodes I’ve seen. Not that the others were bad, but I love questions that are on the edge between physics and philosophy, and you dealt with them beautifully in a very balanced way.

[@vernonkroark]

Tatooine. Oh, thank you so much for answering the Big Bang question correctly. Even some scientists misrepresent the Big Bang Theory sometimes when they say the universe began at the Big Bang.

[@ronigbzjr]

Dude I appreciate your immense patience. Some of these questions you get just make me groan with exasperation.

[@sjsomething4936]

Dagobah gets my vote, although there were lots of interesting topics, including the backstory of UT. I’m only a few scant years older than yourself Frasier so we came of age and remember a lot of the same things from around the same ages. In grade school I did a project on Jupiter and it’s moons using photos and information from the Voyager missions, it was the beginning of my fascination with space. I’m hoping that we’ll see a bit more in our lifetimes, including some exploration of Venus although obviously no colony 😉. It’d be incredibly cool to float in a balloon in the atmosphere of Venus, although probably not much of a view.

[@farrenn9514]

Lol Fraser that's not Lance Pyles, it's me :) Thank you for answering my question this week (Dagobah). I had never considered that my generation may not see much beyond a moon and Mars base. Kind of bummed that we won't get to see Breakthrough Starshot make it to the Alpha Centauri system to find our next home on Proxima B.

[@saeedafyouni619]

lol ya I noticed that I liked your question too Im glad my question was up there, hope to see you later tonight

[@topcat56]

Fantastic show this week Fraser!! I had a really hard time with my vote since they were all so good. Guess I have to go with Tatooine because of the truly objective nature of your answer. Loved it. Your answer to Dagobah was eyeopening . I’m 67 and was able to watch almost the entire history of manned space exploration to this point. Our growth’s been exponential it seems. But you feel that a plateau is coming our way in the near future, awaiting a transitional change in technology to proceed to a broader level of exploration. I’m bummed because Star Trek won’t happen as soon as believed. 😊 Btw, lighting in this episode was great!!

[@MelindaGreen]

The Gaia model just says the system is alive. It doesn't suggest that it's our technology that could become conscious. More interesting is the Global Brain which says that individual humans act a lot like neurons by curating our inputs via the people and topics we follow, interpreting that data's meanings, and firing messages to our followers about our conclusions on how we should think and act. In that way I can easily imagine that the global brain is beginning to turn on, study its situation, and work towards its own stability and achieving other goals. It seems likely that we will be largely unaware of this activity, but perhaps we can monitor internet traffic to eventually discover and understand some of the emergent conscious thoughts happening in the global brain.

[@iantomillward3895]

You always bring out great stuff. I've learnt a lot

[@johnburr9463]

Mustafar. You've been asked similar questions before, but you really formulated the answer quite nicely this time.

[@michaellee6489]

Thank you, Fraser! Every time I had a question or a thought to add, it was gone over by you, so that was pretty cool! Ummm about life taking hold inside stars... I was falling asleep to a very popular youtube narrator, and basically the story was that the sun had gotten tired of us using it as a nuclear waste dump, so it woke up and obliterated the inner solar system, leaving only a couple outer-system bases and stations. Scary stuff. Love your channel, Sir.

[@deant6361]

Great episode as usual thanks for sharing. I really need to digest this stuff

[@joebushnell143]

Fraiser, you clarify things so well. Especially examining space and journalism. It all starts to make sense.

[@frasercain]

Thanks a lot, I'm glad you're enjoying it.

[@AF911vids]

Thanks for answering my question.

[@moyenmishra887]

Hi Fraser, Gratitude for your work always. Dr Anna Frebel on Lex's podcast talked about early generation stars being captured by galaxies and orbiting the wrong way in retrograde. How are they able to sustain their angular momentum with counter rotating central black hole? Thank you

[@ericrmaki]

Mustafar - Thx for all the research you do, so we only need one place to look!

[@cavetroll666]

really cool topics today :)

[@jimcabezola3051]

Bespin! Honestly...this question produced the most surprises to me. Had no inkling so many planets could co-habit a star system. Mahalo, Fraser.

[@frasercain]

He's got a version with a million planets.

[@jimcabezola3051]

@@frasercain Yes! Simply stunning! What a community of people who can not only come up with questions, but also ones that can be mathematically tested. Just look at the possible answers from that. Awe-inspiring; no wonder you all at UT love your jobs, Fraser! Aloha!

[@stevemartin7362]

Tatooine! Loved your answer! 👍

[@danbarry9509]

Love your channel, love the content, and love The Universe Today! However, as this is a compliment sandwich, just one note: I think there’s a little too much red in your camera shot. If that’s just your face: I humbly apologize. But if you’re not chronically sunburned, I’d ask your editor to dial back the reds juussstt a bit. Now for the bottom bun of the compliment sandwich: I’d DM’d you on Twitter a while back saying the same thing, but I love the new studio, lighting, and framing (maybe a touch too much head room, or space above your head…. Damnit now I have to make this a compliment double decker…) Anyway, not trying to be unnecessarily critical, it’s just been on my mind as I watch literally every video you upload. Thanks for the great content! And thanks for being a space journalist and science communicator.

[@donteatthepaint8412]

Hands down my favorite episode. Ty

[@donteatthepaint8412]

Dude this episode is blowing my mind

[@Yezpahr]

Naboo. I like this answer, despite having heard the question over and over and over. What if there indeed are black holes shooting through us, but their event horizon can only gobble up a gluon at any encounter? Could this loss of gluons then explain the natural radioactivity of all elements? (So what I'm getting at, instead of just calling decay "random", it might be that these pico scale black holes just randomly gobble up a gluon from a random proton/neutron)

[@philochristos]

How would you explain the consist half lives of different isotopes on this view? It's not COMPLETELY random.

[@R.Instro]

Interesting idea. The trick here is that the smaller the BH, the faster it evaporates, so a BH small enough to ONLY "eat" a gluon on the way through is probably only moments away from annihilation, having been created only moments before somehow. :)

[@fahimontu7065]

Awesome topics 💜

[@GRILL332]

You did great as a space journalist!

[@raystannard1483]

Hi Fraser. Love the Channel! I have a question. As telescopes get better to the point where we could directly observe an exo planet, could we utilise some combination of gravitational lenses to focus a total of 180 degrees and look back in time at our own solar system?

[@BOORHA1]

What a show. Well done, Fraser.

[@isaacplaysbass8568]

Mustafar. Thank you Fraser; you make our world a better place, along with your colleagues, compadres etc.

[@frasercain]

Aww, thanks a lot!

[@formarosastudio]

Mustafar ! Love hearing about technology that is helping make discoveries. I’d love to learn more about how supercomputer simulations are helping astronomers understand the structure of the universe.. maybe an interview topic??

[@frasercain]

I've got one scheduled. Stay tuned.

[@revenevan11]

"We ask nature to reveal its secrets one at a time. We approach the universe with curiosity, and we let nature tell us how things work and what's out there... and we try not to assume until we have sufficient evidence to get a good sense of what's going on." Great quote!!!

[@TheExplodingGerbil]

Tatooine! A great explanation around a twisty timey-whimey concept. Cheers me dears!

[@koiyujo1543]

it's fantastic that your space journalism company survived for so long

[@Violingirl79]

Tatooine. Excellent episode today 😊

[@zimmy1958]

Thank you.

[@muzduz]

I love your style and delivery of theoretical stuff. Did you ever calculate F=Gm1xm2/r^2 where 1ng mass exerts about the same gravitational force on LIGO that 65 Solar masses at 1.3B Ly exerts on LIGO? Gravity wave of binary system or LHC G Higgs blip? What might that mean? Theoretically of course.

[@TheKorgborg]

thank you

[@robertieachus5865]

Tatooine. Assume for a moment that the universe began with a star collapsing into a black hole. Would the motion of the mass into the proto-black hole be detectable?

[@dimeboy5509]

Definitely Hoth this week. The LHC scares the heck out of me, and now I know why!

[@DevinDTV]

17:00 if I'm not mistaken, going with the premise that the black hole does not evaporate, after it settles in the center of the earth it should consume the rest at a high rate due to the immense pressure at that depth forcing matter into it it's not like a tiny black hole in a gas cloud in space... it's in the middle of a planet where the core of the planet is being forcefully compressed into it by the planet's own weight

[@davidrowewtl6811]

Nice episode. Q: Could Black Holes be a phase change of matter where it adds an extra dimension? Background. 3d space is (perhaps counter intuitively) vastly bigger than 2d space (you can 'put' a lot more 2d into a 3d space). Similarly this applies to 3d into 4d (or 4d into 5d if you include time). So perhaps the apparent singularity of a black hole is the sudden change of dimensionality. Is this itself similar to the period of rapid inflation of the universe?

[@bipolarbear9917]

As far as the question about something coming from nothing, the Casimir Effect seems to prove Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) that virtual particles really do exist, and that they do emerge from the zero point vacuum energy state. On the second question about planets and stars having some form of consciousness (basically similar to pan psychos), this is like Arthur C. Clarke’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ where after the ‘Stargate’ Dave Bowman is drawn into a supermassive star protected by the alien super-intelligence that not live as pure energy within the star. That’s an interesting concept, but panpsychism philosophy seems pretty improbable. Having said that, all life forms most likely have some form of consciousness even down to single called organisms. Do plants have consciousness? Now, that’s a tricky one; maybe!?

[@Aiur89]

Bespin - Awesome episode.

[@AstroDork]

Tatooine. What a beautiful, open minded and obviously accurate answer. Question then: When Hawkin radiation has nearly completely had it's way with a black hole, would it pop back into 'existence' as a neutron star at circa 2.8 solar masses or skip that entirely and just become empty space once the mass of the singularity became zero grams?

[@nerufer]

best questions so far! I cant really decide! (Tatooine if i must).

[@guitart4909]

Fraser Cain: We often describe principals of physics in terms of other principals. For example we describe gravity as a warping of space time, or the exchange of theorized particles such as gravitons. But then we try to understand what space time is or what causes the exchange of gravitons and it creates even more questions. If physics continues to progress over eons won't we eventually hit bedrock in which a phenomena can't be explained via a preceding principal and thus be forced to accept it as "it just is because it is?" More importantly, would we even know we hit bedrock when we do?

[@tdanjones]

Dagobah for sure. I'm the same age and so can relate. But I was hoping to see an O'Neil Cylinder too,

[@dsewtz3139]

Hoth AND Naboo! Smooth transition between your answers! 😆👍 I'm off to reread David Brin's "Earth" right now 😉

[@saeedafyouni619]

same here lol I agree with you Naboo

[@dsewtz3139]

@@saeedafyouni619 Well, it was your question, so thank you! 😀

[@saeedafyouni619]

@@dsewtz3139 lol what? I don't know what you mean...ya lol it was, but it seems that others got more votes

[@Disasterina]

I vote Bespin! Are there any less dusty places on the moon that landers could use? Maybe very recent impact craters or ice coated polar regions?

[@ZiggidyZach]

Question: Is there a dissipative force to gravitational waves? Friction between molecules will diminish ripples in a pond, does a similar mechanism exist to dampen gravity waves? Or is the universe fated to stretch and compress a little bit forever? If something like half of the energy of colliding black holes gets turned into gravitational waves, in the far future what proportion of the universe's energy will be in the form of G waves? Thanks Frasier!

[@frasercain]

Yes, gravitational waves will dampen as they pass through objects, but not much.

[@marceljanssens5935]

Tatooine. Yeah you answered that excellently

[@guitart4909]

Dragons Egg is a good sci-fi book about life forms that evolved not threw organic chemistry but the nuclear chemistry inside stars.

[@RGAstrofotografia]

QUESTION: HST has found an Intermediate Mass Blackhole at M4 (800 MSun at 6kly). How can we be sure that's not the center of mass of the globular cluster without the EHT observation? Can the EHT show the Sag A* orbiting the Milky Way barycenter?

[@frasercain]

They used Gaia to track the movements of 6000 stars in the region to see how they wre moving.

[@marksusskind1260]

Whenever animations attempt to demonstrate the geometry of spacetime, it's often a rubber sheet analogy with large and small spheres on it, the larger is a star, the smaller is a planet. A few are a little more sophisticated with an even smaller sphere representing a satellite of the planet. That may be fine for the 'surface' of a solar system, but I never seem to find such animations from the perspective of the surface of a planet itself. How might geological formations [and buildings] and moving constructions [like living creatures] look in such animations? [I suppose I could assume that 'stationary' structures would actually be depicted as 'orbiting' a representation of the chosen planet.]

[@Bigandrewm]

Frank Herbert dabbled in the idea of conscious stars in his novel Whipping Star and its quasi-sequel The Dosadi Experiment. Good, fun reads for sci-fi enthusiasts.

[@cristinahutchins1902]

The first two questions were equally compelling to me. So, Tatooine and Coruscant: Tie!

[@ravensrulzaviation]

Love this. Ty Fraser and subbers 1:16

[@ronigbzjr]

25 years??! Very impressive. Well done!!

[@emhome924]

Question: Ignoring that large masses would result in a blackhole, what diameter would have the sphere of all the matter of the visible universe if the sphere would be of the density of a neuron star?

[@russellfrizzell4407]

I tend to think of cosmic rays as also a multi-messenger so it could be four types of messengers in multi messenger astronomy.

[@ibluap]

I understood this in an old book of Philosophy: Science does not ask "Why?". Science asks "How?". Philosophy asks "Why?".

[@Tyler-sy7jo]

Robobodies and downloading conciousness into computers or something like that would be something I'd really like to see in my lifetime. There's that old tale that permeates multiple cultures of the person who lives forever and either goes mad, or gets severely depressed but I would absolutely love the opportunity to observe humanity continuing for the next few hundred years. Even if it meant something like being a head in a jar like in Futurama with little cybernetic arms to interact with things around me on some level. As long as there's always new things to learn, I don't think I'd ever get bored of living.

[@bbbl67]

[Tatooine] Though strictly accurate that the Big Bang doesn't describe the mechanism of the origin of the universe, it should be noted that particle accelerators have drilled down to within microseconds of the BB and we know precisely what was happening in the Electroweak era and are heading towards understanding the Strong force era too, which would be nanoseconds after the BB. And there are all kinds of theories about the original cause of the BB, that would answer the "how did something come from nothing" pre-BB era. Such theories are for example, the massive quantum fluctuation theory, or the universe-inside-a-black-hole theories. We also have Noether's Theorem which describes how and when energy conservation can be violated, which would not only mean that energy can be destroyed but also it can be created! Maybe explaining some of these possible theories pre-BB would help some people understand this concept?

[@MyLifeInVideos]

Some years ago I heard about portals being discovered in our magnetosphere, are they the type of portals that we think about in Sifi Or are they completely different ? I could be remembering this all wrong and just sound crazy but please explain. Thank you

[@oopskapootz7276]

You’re talking about small blacks holes but I thought they needed a certain density to prevent light from escaping. You’d need to pack a ton of mass in a tiny size. Is there a minimum size for blacks holes? Can we create them in a lab?

[@benbriedis]

Hi Fraser - I have a question... are cosmic ray observatories a thing? Could they be?

[@LPJ888]

Tatooine, great analogy

[@mmenjic]

18:04 can we be sure that it was not happening already ? Would we know it before it would be to late?

[@Freedom001]

I like the background music

[@ArdaKaraduman]

I think the next milestone after mars will be the jovian system. Nothing too fancy, no permanent colonies, but an orbiter around europa & callisto, and maybe a surface base at ganymede. To check if there is any possiblity to drill down into the ocean. Any mission going to jovian system though, with humans on board, will need somekind of fusion power though. We cant survive out there with the current technology. So, you never know but probably not in our lifetimes. Another could be the starshot project ? A fleet of miniscule solar sails sent toward Alpha Centauri. It also has an energy problem, and would probably take ... 20 - 25 years to get their response back ?

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Hoth “Could the LHC cause a disaster?” A similar question was asked of the first thermonuclear bomb test. Some feared that a hydrogen bomb could ignite Earth’s atmosphere. It seemed reasonable that the nuclear trigger that set off the hydrogen fusion could trigger a global conflagration. Others in the project ran the calculations to show that it would not.

[@CoreyKearney]

The answer you gave for the bespin question sounds a lot like the firefly universe. Or the 'Verse.

[@ioresult]

Mustafar! Grats on almost 25 years!

[@jeremyeharris]

Hi Fraser, Thinking about solar sails. How come the force of the sun's photons acting on planets over billions of years don't slowly change their orbits? Or does it, but it's too slow and insignificant to measure?

[@tsuchan]

You're great Fraser. Just wanted to say.

[@frasercain]

Aww, thanks!

[@emmettobrian1874]

Question about naked singularities. I'd always read that they were impossible, Stephan Hawking didn't like them. But now I'm seeing rumblings they might actually be possible and we might be able to detect them. They used to say a naked singularity would destroy the universe. What's plausible here?

[@laxmankumavat7429]

your videos really make my day☺☺

[@frasercain]

Thanks a lot!

[@charleslivingston2256]

Hoth. I had friends back when LHC was being built that had that objection. I wish I'd have known that we regularly see cosmic rays that are orders of magnitude more energetic. Question: is the a good answer to the risk of an accident being to high to launch a spacecraft with radioactive power source?

[@akshayb9798]

Musfafar! Love to hear your story, Fraser

[@zacharylindahl]

Naboo If we were able to make a small black hole, would there be a way to contain it to use as a power source? Should be able to gain some pretty decent energy by chucking stuff into it I figured

[@MrMegaMetroid]

As he said, it would evaporate quickly. We are talking a couple of planck seconds quickly. Also, remember, if the entire mass of the earth would turn into a black hole, its event horizon would be 1.7cm in diameter, and its gravity would be exactly that of earth. Now take a black hole made from 2 individual particles. That black hole would have an event horizon so small that it would be almost undetectable for you even if you where the size of a quark, and it would have the exact same gravitational pull as the 2 particles that made it. There is nothing to capture or extract, its gone the instance its made, and its size would be so ridiculously small that its completely irrelevant or undetectable Additionally, remember how much energy we need to accelerate these particles in the first place. Even if you could magically extract the energy of the hawking radiation that evaporates the black hole, the energy output would be exactly as high as the mass of the 2 particles would be if you converted it to energy. A single one of your bodies cells would probably create more energy than that, and you dont need half a cities power grid to create it in the first place.

[@saeedafyouni619]

I agree

[@SuperYtc1]

I have a question for this show: Could gravity be matter moving toward a 4th dimension, and black holes are points where it escapes this 3D plane into a 4th dimension?

[@joankx2cw425]

“And yet… here we are”

[@sahinyasar9119]

Question: What is matter? Is every atom are something like a clump of energy that repel and pull that did created or changed to first light elements?

[@fickyrisher]

I don't know, whats a matter with you 🤣

[@tryhardfpv5351]

Can we build a super particle collider in orbit which could use magnetic fields to guide cosmic rays into a target where new particles could be created and detected at the huge energy levels present?

[@caerdwyn7467]

Conscious stars? Having some Sundiver and Dosadi Experiment vibes.

[@richarddeese1991]

Thanks. Coruscant. @TheKorgborg should read "The Starchild Trilogy" by Frederik Pohl & Jack Williamson. tavi.

[@tamerhafez9995]

Hello Fraser, I have a question. Is there an absolute limit of how early we can see the universe after the BigBang? I mean no matter how advanced our telescopes in seeing infrared light we cannot observe beyond that limit

[@chrisoconnell8432]

Fraser has addressed this very question in a previous episode and the answer is Yes, there is an absolute limit, kinda. We can push past that limit with a gravity wave detector, but not with Telescopes. The limit is based on the laws of physics, not technology.

[@progressiveworld7]

Is there an ultimate purpose or meaning to the existence of the universe?

[@woody5109]

Great explanation of the Big Bang “theory”

[@tarumph]

Tatooine. A very concise explanation of what the Big Bang is and what it isn't.

[@BabyMakR]

[HOTH] This is the answer I always give when people bring these 'dangers' up. They then reply with "Then why don't the scientists study them?" to which I reply with how heavy the detectors used at LCH are and ask how they propose the scientists lift them to the upper atmosphere and if they're going to pay for it.

[@fickyrisher]

Question: In the Copenhagen Interpretation everything is a probability until it's measured or observed (ignoring the complex questions around what counts as an observation and how entanglement allows this to happen over vast distances of spacetime 🤯), my question is can particles become un-observed? Can they revert back to becoming probability if there is nothing around to do the measuring?

[@fickyrisher]

To give a little more context to the question, my favourite experiment is the double slit, what I'm trying to get my head around is when we are measuring the photons we see a difference in the pattern depending on observation, so are we creating the photon when we turn on the laser and is the photon extinguished when it hits the filter, because energy can't be destroyed what we are observing is a changing of state, so if we see an interference pattern will that energy from those photons continue to be unobserved? It seems odd that only in that short moment of the experiment observation makes a difference, what about before or after the experiment? At what point is a particle a new thing that has or has not been observed? And what are the ongoing repercussions? I am struggling to put this into words, please forgive the long comment I'm not clever enough to make it short.

[@KarelGut-rs8mq]

It would appear to be that way. Look at the delayed eraser version of the double slit experiment.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

16:45 f: If we created a black hole which happens to be stable (thus disproving HAWKING's theory), it wouldn't simply swallow the planet but rather blow it up at some point since the process of swallowing matter releases huge amounts of energy.

[@Shadinsb]

Lawrence Krauss wrote the book on this, literally titled A Universe From Nothing. You can watch his lecture on it.

[@frasercain]

There are plenty of theories out there that try to figure out where the Universe came from. My point is just that they have nothing to do with the Big Bang.

[@User_2]

My vote goes to Bespin And I’m fairly sure it’s going to win too

[@ImSweetKiss]

Hi Fraser? Could there or will be stars that aren't made of Hydrogen and Helium (from it's birth), like an Oxygen star or a Carbon star?

[@KarelGut-rs8mq]

No. Igniting fusion with Oxygen or Carbon is many times harder than igniting fusion with Hydrogen. The amount of Hydrogen in the universe is so much larger that it would be impossible to gather together enough oxygen/Carbon without also gathering Hydrogen and that hydrogen would start to fuse long before you could collect enough of the heavier element.

[@longcastle4863]

4:00… Aren’t these galaxies now moving further apart from us the further we look ahead in time?

[@HPA97]

Would it be possible to see the reflection of a moon from the ocean of the host planet, assuming we one day can get enough resolution of exoplanets?

[@frasercain]

This idea has been proposed. In theory there'll be an ocean glint that can be detected. arxiv.org/abs/1901.05011

[@douganderson8315]

Question: is it possible there are objects in the universe that didn't come from the Big Bang? Maybe they were hanging around prior?

[@joefresh3725]

I wondered the same thing, after JWST found giant galaxies, older than they should be. Maybe they're left-overs from the previous cycle?

[@nathanegbert977]

According to the theory, there exists no space or time beyond the event horizon of the big bang, then or now. So I guess the answer is no?

[@insaisissable3938]

@@nathanegbert977 there is no proof yet that there is an event horizon of the Big Bang. This still theory.

[@SuperYtc1]

I believe there are higher dimensions and things we’re totally oblivious to. A 4th spatial dimension, at least, to me makes a lot of sense. We’re like fish in a tank trying to understand reality but being completely unaware there’s more to this than we can possibly imagine, and having almost no hope of ever knowing.

[@frasercain]

In theory we can still perceive higher dimensions as they interact with our 3D space. In the same way that a 3D person can interact in a 2D space. A sphere becomes a circle, etc.

[@robertanderson5092]

Scientists like for every equation to balance. The negative and the positive. Call it conservation of nothingness. A positive and negative 3 dimensional universe would need to be separated by another dimension.

[@fickyrisher]

What if dimensions were fractal and we only get to glimpse a slither of reality surrounded by infinitys

[@SuperYtc1]

@@frasercain yep! And when a 3D sphere gets smaller, I believe this is equivalent to a 4D version of the circle leaving the plane of the 3rd dimension? So hence I feel like expansion in this universe is something 4 dimensional entering this 3D plane, and contraction, such as gravity for example, is like matter escaping into the 4th dimension. What do you think?

[@ImSweetKiss]

About Dagobah question I think we will have the first man made object pass trough another solar system before the 2100's.

[@jacobrawles8687]

Great explanation of the big bang. It makes better sence to me now and don't shake my faith in God, or true science. Thankyou.

[@WineAndSong4Two]

Coruscant, thanks Fraser.