How did the Universe begin? | Great Debates in Physics (Cosmology)

Go to brilliant.org/D... and sign up for free. The first 200 people that go to that link will get 20% off the annual premium subscription. In the beginning, there was....what? Thankfully Physics can now help us answer that question! But during the 20th Century, there was a debate raging between whether the Universe started in a Big Bang or has existed forever. Thankfully that debate was eventually settled by radio astronomy...
Alpher, Bethe & Gamow (1948) - journals.aps.o...
Alpher & Herman (1948) - www.nature.com...
Ryle (1955) - ui.adsabs.harv...
Dickie et al. (1965) - articles.adsabs...
Penzias & Wilson (1965) - articles.adsabs...
----
📚 "Space: 10 Things You Should Know": bit.ly/SpaceDrB...
📚 US & Canada version: "Space at the speed of light" (same book, different title): www.penguinran...
📚 German translation "Das kleine Buch vom großen Knall" : www.dtv.de/buc...
---
🔭 Royal Astronomical Society podcast that I’m co-hosting 😱 🥳- podfollow.com/supermassive
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
--
The artwork in the background is a scientifically accurate map showing the orbits of more than 18000 asteroids in the Solar System, created by Eleanor Lutz. Find out more and buy one here: eleanorlutz.co...
---
📹 Dr. Becky also presents videos on Sixty Symbols: / sixtysymbolsand Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
---
👩🏽‍💻 Dr Becky Smethurst is an astrophysicist researching galaxies and supermassive black holes at Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethur...

[@I_Don_t_want_a_handle]

I have no idea how the universe started. All I can say is that it was not my fault. Honest.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

How do you know?

[@joshuacornelius25]

Sounds like something the guilty might say, methinks. 🤔

[@FLPhotoCatcher]

@ 23:10 Becky says "Big Thang Theory"...

[@BritishBeachcomber]

I believe you. It was all down to my misspent youth...

[@BritishBeachcomber]

@@FLPhotoCatcher no, she said "big bang theory". You just heard what you wanted to hear.

[@rylian21]

In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams

[@boterlettersukkel]

LOL.

[@rothorsekid]

42

[@91722854]

that's analogus to saying 'the universe began when the universe began' just as 'I eat because I eat'

[@antonystringfellow5152]

Christopher Miller Thank you! LOL!!!

[@greennights2388]

It never happened, the universe was never created. It is being created now, it's always now, and if the archetypes stopped doing what they do, everything would cease as tho it never were in an instant. Logic relies on time, both are illusion. Age of the universe is the wrong question. Power greed will never see reality.

[@MedlifeCrisis]

I've been catching up with a bunch of your videos I've missed over the last few months and you really make some of the most interesting and easy to listen to educational videos on KZbin at the moment. And your channel's really grown! Hope you continue to find the time to make them 🙂

[@traposucio2944]

Same goes for you. I am lucky to know about both of you!

[@Lucyorangejuicy]

This is a treat finding you here @MedLifeCrisis

[@arctic_haze]

Commentary on Ryle versus Hoyle by Barbara Gamow, George Gamow's wife: "Your years of toil," Said Ryle to Hoyle, "Are wasted years, believe me. The steady state Is out of date. Unless my eyes deceive me, My telescope Has dashed your hope; Your tenets are refuted. Let me be terse: Our universe Grows daily more diluted!" Said Hoyle, "You quote Lemaître, I note, And Gamow. Well, forget them! That errant gang And their Big Bang- Why aid them and abet them? You see, my friend, It has no end And there was no beginning, As Bondi, Gold, And I will hold Until our hair is thinning!" "Not so!" cried Ryle With rising bile And straining at the tether; "Far galaxies Are, as one sees, More tightly packed together!" "You make me boil!" Exploded Hoyle, His statement rearranging; "New matter's born Each night and morn. The picture is unchanging!" "Come off it, Hoyle! I aim to foil You yet" (The fun commences) "And in a while" Continued Ryle, "I'll bring you to your senses!"

[@BarbarianGod]

How is there not an epic rap battle of history based on this?!

[@admiralsquatbar127]

Hi, it's nice to see you outside of the debunking community.

[@arctic_haze]

@@admiralsquatbar127 I think I am drifting slowly away from listening what the denialist of the day has claimed in his latest video.

[@admiralsquatbar127]

@@arctic_haze I think a lot of the debunkers are moving away from fleurfs onto other nutters, because Flat Earth is dead.

[@Akswan]

@@admiralsquatbar127 Deep man ,deep...

[@michaelwadman6276]

The biggest question that humanity has ever asked: - Where did I put my keys?

[@will4may175]

Or as Doc Brown wanted to know....Women

[@xilnes7166]

Tech God Apple Inc just answered it, KeyTags , or as they might say "My key Tag"

[@hideouspatje]

@@xilnes7166 not ikey itag?

[@waynedarronwalls6468]

Or, "where is the remote?"

[@Akswan]

I realy like the graffity in 'heare.

[@olevik2005]

Fun note, Penzias and Wilson referred to the pigeon poo as "white dielectric material". A note I learned from Bill Bryson in A short history of nearly everything.

[@pawfootage]

What a great book.

[@chrisray1567]

The audiobook is great too.

[@andrewesther4705]

Good to know next time I run out of dielectric grease.

[@ffggddss]

If written more recently, it might have been called, "white biohazardous dielectric material." Fred

[@Just_lift_anyone]

I absolutely love that book, its my bible. Bill Bryson is a fantastic author and has a wicked sense of humour.

[@larryscott3982]

This is a top ten vid. Right level of detail, great time line of the history of the hypotheses turned theory. Right level of technical depth.

[@jayizzett]

lol. Just enough where you don’t question.

[@larryscott3982]

Jay Izzett Oh contraire.

[@jayizzett]

Touche .. did any questions arise for you when watching. as to challange anything she mentioned

[@larryscott3982]

Jay Izzett “Touché” nice. Not questions as a challenge. They challenge each other. I’m in the spectator class, not the speculation class. I yield. The smart money is on continued expansion toward ‘heat death’ of the universe. That’s a hard point to consider. I had thought a collapse and repeated cycle would be natural. So as she said, research into possible cosmological scenarios, forward and backward in time, support for and/or dismissal of current theories, is a never ending proposition. Seeing Einstein get challenged/revised is always a crowd pleaser.

[@gammaraygem]

I stopped following the argumentations on redshift after i heard an interview with Subir Sarkar, Oxford particle phycisist, with Sabine Hossenfelder in which he explains that results aquired with the minimal amount of data used in Cosmology would be thrown out immediatly in Particle physics. It is like trying to get 100% explanation with 1% of data. In Particle Physics they do not have that problem, because they can just create more data. Cosmology is entirely dependent on observation. Which, to date, is extremely limited. "scientific tests", "evidence"...sorry, in Cosmology it is all fairy tales.

[@an8588]

Thank you for another great video! My daughter is an 11 year-old aspiring physicist and I love sharing your videos with her. You are a wonderful role model of aspiring female scientists.

[@richardaitkenhead]

R/thathappened

[@roseboo4603]

This type of inspiration for the children is not found in the schools of today,what a shame that our teachers are no where near her level.The only want to politicize our children's mind and stifle free and honest thought.That is very shamefull.

[@catpoke9557]

@@richardaitkenhead ...You think it's a 'that happened' moment for a kid to enjoy physics...? Have you ever listened to a scientist in your life? They all start out as nerds from the very beginning. I'd like to be a physicist and I loved physics when I was 11.

[@physicslover4951]

@@catpoke9557 I think you are getting it wrong. I used to hate physics until a certain point in time just because I never gave physics a chance. I was always told it was boring so that's how I looked at it when I was first introduced to it. But as you must have noticed, Dr. Becky is very excited about what she tells. To see someone so enthusiastic about something you hate, you start to really think about why you hated it, and then you realise there was nothing to hate! Then you start trying out experiments and observing. I think that is what they are pointing out. I mean, I am an aspiring phycisist myself ;)

[@EvieDoesYouTube]

@@physicslover4951 I agree with @Cat Poke, my first school project at age 7 was about space, and when I turned 11 and went to high school physics was always my favourite class. Some schools only teach combined science and not individual classes in physics, chemistry and biology and that's a shame, but I was lucky enough to be at a school that taught all 3 individually. I found biology boring though.

[@stevefranks6541]

Greetings, Congratulations. You managed to squeeze an entire semester into a 26 minute discussion that was logical, complete, and smoothly delivered in content from beginning to end. No glaring omissions or high points left out. Instructive and entertaining. You are excellent explainer of complex topics. I love your work. Been active in astronomy as an amateur for 60 years, and love sharing what I have learned or observe to people not otherwise familiar with my avocation.

[@michaelstiller2282]

My favorite videos on the web are the ones that debunk Dr. Becky.

[@buttsexxor]

australian here, by the last time you said "motivated" in the bloopers, you had the accent perfect. love your show, always an enlightening delight

[@MSheepdog]

Yeah I thought so too. Actually rewound the video to listen a second time because I thought it was pretty spot on.

[@pgpete]

@@MSheepdog I was also thus "motivayted"

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

You have a new fan in New Zealand. You have a knack for presenting difficult and challenging topics without watering them down. Your presentations are also great examples on how science works in general. Thank you for sharing!

[@gregorysmith7308]

As a fellow kiwi, "what took you so long"? LOL.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

@@gregorysmith7308 Good question. I only came across this channel by accident two weeks ago. There is a lot of good stuff on KZbin.

[@flatearthjackal9201]

SPACE IS FAKE RESEARCH FLAT EARTH 😁

[@NZC_Meow]

Hello there I'm also a kiwi

[@zacp96]

the Alpha Beta Gamma paper and getting someone on it who sounds like Beta just for a pun says so much about physicists, I love it

[@Maxcallaghanphysics]

I does doesn’t it

[@pablomartinez1674]

Don't do that to your self. You'd go crazy.

[@Dakarai_Knight]

I love it. Its adorable

[@AECRADIO1]

ALPHE, BETHE, GAMMOW..

[@artistjoh]

I am old enough to remember when the Steady State Theory was the leading theory. The name Big Bang became popular after a best seller book (Brief History of Time) popularised it, but in the 60’s I mostly heard it referred to as Cosmic Egg cosmology, or a finite, or oscillatory universe. The Big Bang name existed, but it wasn’t nearly as much talked about with the strong name recognition that accompanies it now. I do remember the conversation, for the public, was dominated by Hoyle, so naturally he emphasised the significance of his own theory. At the time the age of the universe was commonly quoted as 10 to 20 billion years, or maybe eternal. It has been fascinating to see the Big Bang grow rapidly in the 70’s and 80’s. I remember Alan Guth and Inflation and by that time Hoyles ideas were rapidly receding and Big Bang had become the default, and everyone knew the subtitle to Hawking’s book - From Big Bang to Black Holes. My memories suggest to me that while Hoyle coined the name Big Bang, it was Hawking more than anyone that really put it into the vocabulary of the man in the street.

[@Akswan]

One word if i may to you sir"Respect".

[@PanglossDr]

The credit belongs entirely with the inventor. Popularising something has no value.

[@LabGoats]

@@PanglossDr Credit belongs to the inventor above all, but don't discount the value of science communication. You ARE after all on a science communicators channel.

[@samuela-aegisdottir]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I am much younger, so the Big Bang was the leading theory during my entire life, but I remeber the time Pluto was a planet. I was dissatisfied with that state, I saw that Pluto doesn't fit among the other planets. I was happy when they changed the definition of a planet and Pluto get into new category, to be finally among its peers.

[@MegaFortinbras]

In her discussion of the Christian -- specifically Catholic -- backing of the Big Bang Theory, Dr Becky should have mentioned that Georges Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.

[@olamarvin]

Just want to chime in that this whole "great debates" line you've gone for has hit the bullseye. The way it takes us through history, teaches us why things are named how they are named etc. is so enlightening. Lots of old stuff is strange to us normal people but basics to you science people. Doing these rounds brings us up to speed in a great historical based way. You are an amazing science communicator!

[@DrBecky]

Thanks Ola! 🤗

[@olamarvin]

@@DrBecky Thank yourself, you are brilliant!

[@EnglishMike]

If you want to know more about the history of cosmology, I can highly recommend two books by Timothy Ferris: "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" and "The Whole Shebang". They combine to make a very readable account from Copernicus to the modern day. The latter book is over 20 years old at this point so doesn't include the progress made in the 21st century.

[@s3cr3tpassword]

Ok, honestly when she started the channel I thought it was gonna be a lot of repeated topics from Brady’s channel or typical astronomy topics you see in other astronomy channels. But her content has been amazing! I love the history stuff and the debate stuff.

[@DrBecky]

Thanks!

[@leemaples1806]

Great point s3cr3tsauce. We give her 5 out of 5 stars. ;-)

[@Akswan]

Some times i drift away in this wonder land of her's ,she is like one of a cinde..

[@madderhat5852]

From the 2020 perspective, it probably involved the word "oops !".

[@alexdevisscher6784]

And a second voice that said: "I told you to leave it alone! Look at the mess you made!"

[@Rhangaun]

"Das kleine Buch vom großen Knall" is an adorable title :)

[@cheesy-p1j]

Und da soll doch einer sagen wir könnten nicht auch "schön" sprechen :-)

[@Hvitserk67]

Yes, the German title of the book is definitely cooler and very "German" (at least in my Norwegian ears). I have the "Space: 10 Things You Should Know" variant and it is actually very interesting and not least quite easy to understand (at least for lay people like me purely thematic). The book is definitely recommended :)

[@Zestyclose-Big3127]

@@Hvitserk67 "Space: 10 Things You Should Know" wow yeah the Gemran title is indeed a lot cooler

[@Akswan]

Habt recht

[@alishba2007]

Ja!!!

[@chriseffpunkt4333]

The answer to the ultimate question,.. of life, the universe and everything is.. 42. 42 in ASCII -> "*" (Asterik) -> Asterik means Wildcard -> Wildcard basically means: "Anything you want it to be" Genius

[@EnglishMike]

Nice, but unfortunately, Douglas Adams' stated reason for choosing 42 is that he wanted to pick a simple, ordinary number -- nothing profound or significant. That was the intent of the joke. The great thing is, it worked beyond his wildest dreams. I wonder how long it will be before this use of 42 passes out of common parlance. Coincidentally, it's already been 42 years and counting! 😲

[@usagoalie1234]

I’m a theologian by trade, please don’t hate I’m here to learn, and the main thing I wanted to say is THANK YOU for showing how thought has developed throughout time! In my education I’ve taken multiple Historical Theology courses, as well as a few History of Science courses (thank you liberal arts education in UG) and it has shaped my thinking in a far broader way than I think many will ever have the luxury of realizing! I find that tracking development of thought creates a far more humble, but also confident, view of our process of thought at the moment. Whenever someone takes an idea as God’s revelation, it quickly becomes problematic, so the fact you’re so willing to discuss that development is just refreshingly wonderful! Love it!

[@supreetsahu1964]

Man I love this format. Pls do more debate videos in the future!

[@jøntantano]

I love the way you bring your own perspective and thoughts side by side with every topic and every explanation. It would be amazing to have a video dedicated to some of your own in-depth thoughts and opinions regarding the knowledge and the advances that have been made throughout history and how do you visualize the world having some of the most important answers to all that big questions today. It just enthralling me to think about how and were all that knowledge would lead us eventually. Thank you for these phenomenal videos, Dr. Becky! 😀

[@rogersledz6793]

Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!

[@BIGV1N]

Thumbnail game is ON POINT! Looking forward to watching this later on this evening

[@ThatCrazyKid0007]

One thing that you should have mentioned is that the modern Big Bang theory describes the post-CMB emission era *only* (estimated around 300,000 years after the 'start' of the universe predicted by General Relativity). It is indisputable at this point that our modern universe expanded from a hot dense state that was much smaller in size than our contemporary universe. The Big Bang theory does NOT claim that the universe began from a single point, it merely describes the evolution of the universe after the moment the CMB radiation was emitted. The era prior to the CMB is actually covered by the inflation hypothesis, which tries to explain how the universe could have expanded to that dense hot state that emitted the CMB. The thing is, we cannot test our hypothesis for this era because we physically cannot measure anything prior to the CMB emission, that's why it's a hypothesis and not a theory. So this era is completely in the dark for us. The best we can do is try to derive equations that describe the current universe and 'rewind' them in time and see what they describe prior to the CMB emission. We did this with General Relativity, but unfortunately once you rewind to the time that is equal to the Planck time (something like t=10^-35ish forgot the exact exponent), the equations of Quantum Mechanics come with a serious contradiction with General Relativity and at those insane energy levels the equations break apart and give a mathematical singularity. Now when you get a singularity, it means your model is not complete. That's why we are trying to find a theory of quantum gravity, that could resolve the contradiction between our two most verified theories in physics and give us a clear answer, mathematically speaking at least. You mentioned this conflict, however it's important to make a distinction on what the Big Bang theory actually covers so people can stop discrediting it as absurd just because it can't explain the singularity beyond the Planck time. We don't *know* the universe came from a single point, it's our best current hypothesis based on the theories we currently have. What we DO know is that the universe was indisputably in a smaller, hot and dense state from which it expanded in size and cooled down to form matter, galaxies, stars etc. That cannot be discredited.

[@martinedwards2004]

That’s a nice distinction between what the Big Bang theory really says (post CMB universe) versus speculative rewinding of theories to t=0. Thanks.

[@SoleaGalilei]

There's a very important lesson here about not blindly adopting a position just because it is the opposite of what your enemy believes. It turns out that not every issue divides neatly along pre-existing ideological lines, no matter how aggressively some try to force everything to do so.

[@wilburjunior9949]

From the large ( supernova poop ) to the small ( pigeon poop ) Dr. Becky can cover it all. Love it Dr. B.

[@1submarine670]

Personally I love the theory of a cycle no beginning, no ending, only transformation (A cycle before/ above(if time doesn’t exist in that cycle) the Big Bang, it’s origin (sort of))

[@myrojyn]

This is more in line what I subscribe too. That there was no beginning, at least not in any sense that we can fully understand. Sort of like a ring, where is the start and where is the end?

[@mohamednadjib1446]

I think this idea is just running away from the problem with an illogical answer ....how did this circle started ? No beginning?

[@joshuacornelius25]

You don't need a cyclical model to make that happen... It can be done with less assumptions in a linear function... Which is what the Everettian interpretation predicts.

[@joshuacornelius25]

@@myrojyn a ring is a 2 dimensional analogy, an expanding sphere would be the three dimensional representation. I think there closest term we can use to describe it is a multi it infinitly dimensional hilbert probably vector space of no quantifiable "size". Space-time s a 4 dimensional emergent manifestation of the wave form that we think is fundamental because it is what we are able to observe. Quantum mechanics (as well as past updates to our understanding of Newtonian physics) had made it perfectly clear that what we observe is a illusory low-res sampling of the wave function.

[@1submarine670]

Humanity Forever no beginning indeed as for now because we consider that time exist only within our universe, not that illogical, the Big Bang can exists in this theory( well to me but I could be wrong) and it spread the matter from another version of the universe into ours, but it’s an idea, not proven, and so not an answer

[@Gthefray]

Thank you so so much!! I am thrilled to have found your channel. Your videos are incredibly important. Can‘t put into words how grateful I am. I wish you all the best with everything ✨

[@jamescarlisle3770]

you are a great communicator. astronomy is fortunate to have you. and so are we who found your website.

[@TheRealMalvaX]

All my life I've struggled understanding cosmic microwave background, because all descriptions I've read about it just gloss over it the same way you do in this video without actually explaining it. And yet it is so simple to explain and understand. The very early universe was not transparent, yet it had abundant sources of electromagnetic radiation. It was like the universe was filled with brightly lit fog that you could not see through. As it expanded it became transparent at one point in time T (I think it was when electrons settled around hydrogen atoms). When we look into distant universe we look into the past. How far can we look? The limit is the point T. Anywhere we look, we ultimately can see this 'barrier' of fog (only massively redshifted). That's it.

[@TheRealFlenuan]

The Big Bang theory isn't a theory about how the universe actually originated; it's about how the universe evolved since the instant (10⁻⁴³s) after it was a singularity. The origin of that singularity is a question for other theories to answer, and some like eternal inflation have possibly already made progress on that front. The discrepancy can be likened to the difference between biological evolution and abiogenesis: whereas evolution explains how all life has developed out of its earliest ancestral replicator, it doesn't precisely describe the nature of that first replicator or how it came into being, and that matter is the subject of other competing theories (like the RNA world hypothesis).

[@timbeaton5045]

@1:02 i misheard as "...chinese mythology with Pingu..." 🐧

[@Scribe13013]

The abyss turned round to give itself a kiss...then exploded with bliss...deliciously amiss...somewhere seemingly seeping stew of mist

[@shubhsrivastava4417]

@GMBCATASTROPHE SIMP!!

[@fredriksvard2603]

No

[@dansbrown1313]

Based on my life experience as of circa 1964, Our universe started shortly after some entity showed up with jumper cables. I understand there may be a battery of questions.

[@specialkgb1980]

Lovely vocal Scales Dr Becky

[@lukeskywalker7457]

Dr. Becky you're amazing at explaining things back to the roots. I discovered your channel yesterday and going through your library. Thanks for the great content!

[@xilnes7166]

the comments gonna be very interesting this time I am sure...

[@busybillyb33]

How?

[@ParkerUAS]

@@busybillyb33 , the religious types may come out of the woodwork on this one.

[@jmacd8817]

@@busybillyb33 "Judea Christian mythology" is a phrase that triggers many people...

[@busybillyb33]

Oh right. I feel like I'm fortunate for not having seen that side of youtube in a long time. As far as I'm aware, Dr. Becky's comments sections are generally free of such nonsense discussions and I hope it stays that way.

[@ParkerUAS]

@@busybillyb33 one can pray. ;-)

[@icebox344]

The bloopers show how much effort goes into ensuring your content is accurate and easy to understand. One of the few channels i can rely on the content being correct. Thanks

[@orsencarte7739]

This is one of the best educational videos to be shown on You Tube. Effective and captivating. Thank you

[@paulgrech4210]

I'm in love To see lectures about the the cosmos executed with such passion and clarity. With evidence, used to justify her assertions explained so exquisitely that the novice is able to not just comprehend, but enjoy even. This is surely, the essence of great professorship.

[@joen0411]

Thank you. I remember reading about all this history many years ago but have forgotten most of it. I was really annoyed I could not remember Hoyle’s name and his contribution to “star poop” which is more important than the name makes it sound. My new favorite video. Again, thank you.

[@diephysiker433]

Becky has a skill of representing science in a very knowledgeable and easy language. I liked the video very much!!!! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@mik99D]

I met Fred Hoyle, he was walking the Yorkshire Moors with some yank. Oh that's right Richard Feynman. I met Hoyle a few times. I know that I'm pretty smart, but he was, one of those whom where way out there. Like Feynman was. Hoyles biggest problem was his fed-upness of the way things were going. He missed out on one of the most deserved Nobel Prises, for the tripple alpha process. Hence the reuse of the phrase "According to Hoyle".

[@Freddy-Da-Freeloadah]

Evidently the term "Big Bang" was coined by Hoyle! IMHO. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

[@Amateur0Visionary]

I'm pretty sure that the phrase "according to Hoyle" is a reference to Hoyle's Rules of Games.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

There are some questions which we will probably never be capable of explaining. If the universe had a beginning, that presupposes a prior nothingness. But what is nothing? And how could everything come from nothing? But if the universe is cyclic, and has always existed, then why do we have something rather than nothing?

[@hs7921]

Extraordinary. You spoke for over 25 minutes, drawing on your knowledge. Nary a vowel or consonant out of place. The longest speech I ever made was 7 minutes, and it took a good week to get it all sounding easy and continuous. Excellent piece of work. And I’m still a follower of steady state theory. 😁😁😁

[@superdrag65]

So happy I found this channel. You’re great at explaining difficult concepts in a very simple, yet not condescending, manner.

[@EnglishMike]

Did you know it's been 42 years since Douglas Adams first came up with the idea for 42 being the answer to life, the universe and everything? 😲

[@nHans]

@space-time simulation OK, you made me look up both 1/337 and 337, which I did just to make sure that you were joking. Good one 😂

[@nHans]

@space-time simulation Duuuuuude ... The fine structure constant is about 1/137 - of course I know that - I didn’t realize that when you originally wrote 1/337, that was a typo.

[@boterlettersukkel]

6 x 9 = 42.

[@inerlogic]

*answer the the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. We don't know what the question is....

[@EnglishMike]

@@inerlogic Our minds are too highly trained...

[@ffggddss]

Hey, thanks! This was a very concise, yet well-explained trip through cosmology during the last several centuries! A couple things I noted, if you please: Around 13 min: Spelling - Pope Pius XII (there's no "o" in the name) 25m 10s: You're explaining the wonders of "Brilliant," showing one of their screens on cosmology. I believe they might have a slight error there - they say that the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) all-sky map is in the Mollweide projection, which they compare with its use for world maps. The world map they show has all the latitude circles mapped into straight lines; I don't think that's the right projection for the sky map, then. Let me explain. The instrument that produced the differential CMBR intensity map that you show for CoBE, was the DMR (Differential Microwave Radiometer). I worked as a scientific data analysis software engineer on the CoBE project, 1985-95. Part of what I did, was to deal with sky maps much like this one, that we made for all 3 instruments. The projection we used can be mathematically described in 3 steps; think of a world map as an example. 1. You start with the complete globe, make a "cut" along the 180º meridian, and collapse it around, along latitude circles, dividing all longitudes by 2, leaving latitude values alone, so that you now have a hemisphere, from longitudes -90º to +90º. 2. Now apply a polar equal-area projection to make a planar map, which will be a circle; the "pole" of the projection being (0º,0º) lon-lat. The equator maps into its horizontal diameter. 3. Superimpose an x-y coordinate system on that circle, origin at (0º,0º); so that the x-axis is on the equator. Now stretch that circle into a 2-by-1 ellipse by doubling all the x-coordinates. The result is the projection we used, whose name I've forgotten; but the only latitude circle that maps to a straight line, is the equator. The others all curve, with increasing curvature toward each pole, in the direction of "wrapping" around their respective poles. (This curvature happened in step 2, and was preserved in step 3.) By construction, it is an equal-area projection (each step preserves area ratios). Now, that was on CoBE. I was not connected to the WMAP project, but I believe its PI (Principal Investigator), was Chuck Bennett, who was the Deputy PI on CoBE/DMR (PI, George Smoot). Given that WMAP was the successor to DMR (a higher-res DMR!), I think it very likely that the same projection would have been used there. We (CoBE) didn't invent that projection; it had been used a lot before CoBE, so it was part of the mathematical "toolbox" of NASA (and outside of NASA, too, I believe) sky-mapping projects. ADDENDUM: Thanks to a reply to this comment by Peer Henselmans, I now know that the projection we used was (what we thought was called) an Aitoff projection. I see that this was the wrong name for what we were actually using, though; Aitoff is not equal-area. The correct name is the Hammer projection, which *is* equal-area. Fred

[@ffggddss]

@@peerhenselmans Doesn't ring a bell, but I'll look into it. Thanks, in either case! Hey, just looked it up. Not even close to being equal-area - BUT - it pointed me to a name I DID recognize: Aitoff projection (1889). That was what we *called* the projection I was trying to think of, and that we used. But come to find out, from the description of the way it's produced, it isn't equal-area either! It looks very close to what we actually used, which WAS equal-area, and whose correct name is the "Hammer projection" (1892). The math for it, given on the Wikipedia page, is exactly what we were using for the CoBE skymaps. [BTW, the equal-area property was important to us, and to researchers who would use our data products, because it gives equal visual "weight" to all regions of the sky.] So we were using the wrong name all along! Thanks again, even more, for leading me right to where I could clear this whole thing up!! Fred

[@perrinayebarra]

Your enthusiasm makes you very easy to listen to.

[@NondescriptMammal]

Such a clear explanation and summary of how these theories have evolved over time. Thanks for explaining this history in understandable terms without dumbing things down or depending too much on analogies. Very informative!

[@carbon60unit]

Sir Fred Hoyle is the source of the terrible junkyard creationist quote: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein." But, on the other hand, I find this one charming: Space isn't remote at all. It's only an hour's drive away if your car could go straight upwards."

[@frenstcht]

Where did he live that his local junk yard had 747 fixins'? Screw the tornado! I want to see what the A-Team can make!

[@BritishBeachcomber]

And at a constant acceleration of only 1G, a spacecraft could reach [almost] the speed of light in just one year of perceived (onboard) time. We could therefore get almost anywhere in the universe within a human lifetime. Note: this does not take account of the expansion of space-time itself, which kind of messes with the whole idea. But that doesn't really matter too much, because there's no going back. Also, when traveling that fast, you wouldn't have a chance to stop and look around at where you are. Or even really see anything much...

[@billymcnutt116]

"Nice 747. Where did you get it?" "Oh," [Looks at audience] "I found it in a junkyard." **canned laughter**

[@FLPhotoCatcher]

@@billymcnutt116 The surprising thing is, that "terrible junkyard creationist quote" is basically true, as far as we know. Yeah, I'm outta here, goodbye!

[@mirador698]

FLPhotoCatcher No it‘s rubbish. A „tornado sweeping through a junk yard“ is not an evolutionary process. No one claims that humans came into existence after a strong wind blew through some Carbon molecules.

[@bradmoyer9737]

The fact that a female Astrophysicist is explaining the works of male physicists and astronomers from hundreds of years ago to present in a format that a non-scientist like myself can understand gives me great hope for us as a species. Well done!

[@kadidlang]

U d u m m y

[@richardmercer2337]

"Steady State Theory", a TV show that has no beginning and no end. (muffled scream!)

[@tjitsekoster9379]

it just creates new content as it expands...

[@crazybrit-nasafan]

Sounds like a Conservatives political broadcast.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@TML0677 Unfortunately for your temper tantrum, the evidence so far seems to favour the 'big bang' theory. Hoyle's hypothesis has had no evidence to support it.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@TML0677 What are you talking about? The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation isn't centred on any place in the universe. 'Gang Bang '?

[@VelvetCondoms]

This actually exists. They're called American soap operas

[@jeremymiller9582]

Technology from WWII, namely the spectrograph and widespread availability of high-quality recording equipment, influenced my field (linguistics) as well. Both were used to capture and analyze sound signatures of technology, especially submarines. Spectrograms represent sound visually and allow for very fine analysis of differences in speech sounds.

[@pauldacus4590]

Don't politicize science? *BUT IT'S WORKED SO WELL!*

[@fractalsauce]

Idea for a drinking game: Take a shot every time Becky says "sort of"

[@DrBecky]

I noticed this whilst editing this week too! Have I always done this?! Making an active effort to not from now on (although next two videos already in the can so...)

[@FLPhotoCatcher]

@@DrBecky For the next two videos, Editing Becky could always bleep out "sort-of" or voice-over them with "totally". JK :)

[@fractalsauce]

@@DrBecky This is the first time I've noticed it so I can't say for sure, but it sure gave me quite the chuckle :)

[@leif1075]

@@DrBecky Hey Becky can you please also make an effort to respond to my email when you can? Thanks very much.

[@davetravis1805]

@@leif1075 I will answer for her NO she doesn't want to go on a date with you.

[@ShaheenGhiassy]

This is all wrong! The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily one night.

[@timelordtardis]

Wrong! It was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. We only await the Time of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief. All Hail the Great Green Arkleseizure! 😁

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

who created the FSM?

[@timelordtardis]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Did I not say the Great Green Arkleseizure created the universe. Disbeliever! Burn the disbeliever! 😁

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@timelordtardis was I asking you?

[@ShaheenGhiassy]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b The answer to your question is detailed in the Loose Cannon scripture: "His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Eternal, without beginning and without end, and with a whole tangled mess in the middle. He willed All That There Is into existence when He saw fit to do so and in the order He chose. He prankishly thwarts all human attempts to find out exactly when or how this might have occurred."

[@5pecular]

A beginning is a concept we have because we have a beginning, conception, there is no evidence that the universe has a beginning only observations that show it appears to be expanding. There may be other explanations for the "echo".

[@eddiebrown192]

5pecular like what ?

[@stargaze3894]

i recently watched this channel and now i'm binge-watching these videos

[@cloudburn498]

I didnt know I needed this - food for thought. I cant wait to see the other videos!

[@vimalk78]

0:00 the biggest question i had since i was a child is, "why am i me?"

[@tracyrreed]

"Judeo-Christian mythology". Quite right.

[@notforwantoftrying1]

Islamic mythology

[@adizmal]

@Gerardo Godoy foh

[@tracyrreed]

@Gerardo Godoy Your argument seems to be lacking in evidence to support it.

[@dewiz9596]

Tracy Reed : which is why “they” take it on faith. . .

[@thinboxdictator6720]

@@tracyrreed brainwashed by education :D there is no need for reaction on that statement...

[@EyesOfByes]

The more important question: How did Cooper know in which dimension to look for Murph?

[@AliHSyed]

Love, Tars. Love.

[@EyesOfByes]

Ali Syed 100%

[@tpog1]

:(

[@binita4672]

Just wanna state that I love the way you speak, it feels like having an one on one conversation with a teacher. It really helps an ADHD girl like me haha

[@Blyndem]

That bit about people trying to associate their preferred hypothesis with opposing ideologies reminded me of one of my favorite shirts that says, "Science doesn't care what you believe." Couldn't Ryle's determination that there were more radio wave emitting bodies in the early universe be explained by non-radio wave emitting bodies just moving away so fast that they've red-shifted? I hope that question makes sense.

[@isaackitone]

I thought all of us (everything) are radio-wave emitting bodies. E.g. light (a radio-wave) hits your body, and reflects to someone's eye for that eye to see you. Same as planets, etc, and for stars, they actually do emit visible light, UV, infrared, lower frequency radio, X-rays, gamma rays, and this embarks on its journey in form of photons at 300,000m/s to our eyes/telescopes/antennas.

[@pjousma]

As wannabe/hobby/youytube astronomer this is interesting.

[@lamegoldfish6736]

So.... The egg came first?

[@EnglishMike]

Not necessarily, since we can only probe back far enough to see the egg the moment after it hatched. We don't know how long the egg was there or how it came into being.

[@smi.8771]

😂😂

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

You learned in grad school that the heavier elements were produced by neutron bombardment of lighter elements: Rapid and Slow Rapid meaning that the next neutron hits before the resulting nucleus can decay, Slow meaning that the nucleus had had time to decay before the next neutron hits. However, there are other mechanisms that are not widely publicized. 1. Neutronium fragmentation: When sufficiently violent rebound explosion occurred, neutronium produced by stellar collapse was subjected to pressures sufficiently low for it to shatter into unstable super-massive nuclei which decayed into the elements heavier than iron. 2. Reverse fission: In a super-dense neutron-rich environment at extreme temperatures, post iron nuclei are forced to fuse into much heavier but highly unstable nuclei, which in turn absorb the ambient neutrons and are converted into stable and meta-stable nuclei that are today's heavy elements. Mechanisms 1 and 2 are not necessarily distinct, but overlap.

[@victorinosparkajen9405]

I subscribed a few days ago after realizing through watching the bloopers "This astrophysicist is very down to earth." I'll be honest, I didn't click the bell until "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" reference in this video prompted me to set my notifications to ALL....

[@cheesy-p1j]

My appreciation to you Dr. Becky, for all the effort you make with the thumbnails :-)

[@GaryGraham66]

0.0 then "42" zeros then a 1, hmm. 🤔

[@OmateYayami]

If you're wondering why this number it's probably because it's Planck time. Basically, as said, all the current physic theories fall apart (make obviously bogus predictions) if you try to solve problems at this scale.

[@GaryGraham66]

@@OmateYayami Douglas Adams was correct!

[@OmateYayami]

@@GaryGraham66 I just realized I replied to a month old comment. I didn't get the reference originally, but I hope my comment did provide value. Planck's constants are pretty fundamental. Cheers!

[@C.Chandler_May]

Supernova Poop will be my New band's name.

[@silverfang6668]

The answer to everything: No matter where you go, there you are!

[@GatorDunnAZ]

We don't know how the universe started, though. Rather, we are somewhat able to describe its state at different points after the big bang. The how might ultimately be as unknowable and ineffable as the why.

[@paraskevas_patsis]

Hey doctor Becky, while I love your work, I feel that you should have mentioned that the heliocentric model and the idea that the stars might be similar to our sun just much farther away, did exist at least as far back as Aristarchus of Samos in 300-250 BC and that it had spreed enough to become if not accepted theory, a possible valid explanation, it's just that with the Hellenistic collapse plus the eventual christianisation of the Roman empire it fell (significantly) out of favour...

[@zerg9523]

Sorry for the nerd overload... - A big bang makes sense, because of the overwhelming evidence for it. But how did it come to occur? - A universe from nothing as suggested by Laurence Krauss, seems to our human senses and experience, to be unpalatable and therefor we say unlikely. - The conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) hypothesis seems perfectly reasonable on the surface... it allows for lots of what we have seen and predicted; rapid expansion, a big crunch and a repeating big bang. But it does nothing to answer where did the first big bang come from? and in that system could there be a last one? I love learning about all of these things, but it feels like every time i lift up a pebble in terms of understanding, i see another rock... At least I think i’ve worked out the meaning of life. I believe that meaning is given by the inventor or creator of whatever it may be. So since we don’t have a creator, I don’t think we have a predetermined purpose, we’re just here. For that reason, the meaning of your life is what you want it to be. Pursue things that make you happy, and it will not be a wasted life.

[@hubert9863]

We do have a Creator, even Charles Darwin thought so, therefore we do have a purpose

[@zerg9523]

Hubert - I disagree. Please lets not bring that argument here.

[@JamaaLKellbass]

i agree. meaning of life is evolution. in every aspect of life. grow. just puff puff and pass on. no creators, just causality, evolving universe, multiverse. just one huge dimension of multiverses on a tiny leaf of string theory :D And yeah, nothing is something. I know it, but sadly we will never prove it or see it because that light to see, will never reach us. Our universe is just one huge black hole where ligt cant escape. Damn im crazy, sry

[@hubert9863]

@@zerg9523 you can disagree, that's fine, but there's a line of scientists who agree with me

[@JamaaLKellbass]

@space-time simulation @space-time simulation no, we are Earthers. We live on Earth. Aliens should be on their own planet. And they are, not knowing for us nor we know for them. That's Fermi Paradox. They have nothing to do with our evolution. And no, apes are modern beings, humans and apes evolved from common ancestor 8 million years ago. Traveling Immortal aliens trough space are highly unlikely. If they want to come to Earth, they are welcome, but no civilization wants to travel hundred of million years to get to Earth and be disappointed. That's evolution job, Earth made us to live just on Earth.

[@saintchuck9857]

When I hear these explanations, I get lost in my own little thought experiments that I have no idea if they are right or wrong but I assume right and feel really smart.

[@stevennoel9841]

I absolutely LOVE how you explain simply, these hugely complex concepts. My question: Redshift explains the expanding universe, the further away an object is from us the greater the redshift, also the further away an object is the more into the past you are looking. Is it possible that frequency reduction (redshift) is merely the result of entropy? That these photons are merely losing energy over these huge periods of time? Are objects that we know are moving toward us (Like andromeda) blueshifted? Does Doppler effect come into play?

[@diwitdharpatitripathi7427]

Began with a bang the most plausible cause. The most acceptable. Theory of the universe origination, beginning of the spacetime.

[@jameshurt5848]

Thanks for making my weekends always better.

[@DJ-Daz]

I love the little video of the camera flying though the universe and hundreds of galaxies flying by. It's absolutely mind blowing to try to think of the distances in our own solar system, then between solar systems, then the galaxy, then the distances between galaxies, then the number of galaxies out there. It actually crushes and shuts up my brain.

[@schmetterling4477]

You didn't have exponential notation in school, yet?

[@azurlake]

Still, we don't know how it all started, and odds are we may never know. Science just stops at the beginning.

[@apmm4209]

I understand the fact that the universe is expanding. And if you reverse everything backwards, then it must have come from a single point. ie. The singularity. But the truth is, science simply doesn't know.

[@smenor]

This history and the tapestry of contributions that went into our current incomplete understanding is so beautiful

[@BillySugger1965]

DrB, that was a simply superb explanation of the investigation into and discovery of the origin of our universe. Thank you!

[@arhamshah4592]

Good Morning Dr Becky, I have used your code for the brilliant.org courses, and I would like to thank you for all you have explained. I too am an aspiring astrophysicist. You are doing a great job. You have my regards.

[@DrBecky]

Thanks Arham for the kind words and support!

[@arhamshah4592]

@@DrBecky You are very welcome. Our areas of interest in astrophysics are different. I am(currently) am interested in models of the universe. Thank you for all the explanations.

[@Mr.Buttons]

0:08 idk but the answer is 42

[@edmundkleiser5707]

What I don’t understand is if the CMB is an echo, then what has it bounced off to then hit the receivers on earth today? What has its journey been from Big Bang 14 billion years ago to Earth today?

[@JoeBlowUK]

"Created", "Creation", implies "Creator". Even a great scientist like Becky cannot stop her logical brain from accidentally outputting a suggestion of a creator. I have pondered and studied on the topic of the beginnings of the universe and still have no valid explanation. Although, adding a creator into the mix would instantly solve many problems in cosmology.

[@HyperFocusMarshmallow]

As far as my understanding goes, the idea of rewinding the universe in the expanding version of Friedman’s equation back to where the universe was tiny, only applies to “the observable universe. That’s kind of an important point to stress.

[@samhall3821]

How did it all start? "The bang caused the hole in the middle of it all The bang caused the hole in the middle of it all There's a hole, there's a hole, there's a hole in the middle of it all. There's a void where the bang caused the hole in the middle of it all... There's nothing in the void where the bang caused the hole in the middle of it all... I'm looking for the nothing in the void where the bang caused the hole in the middle of it all..."

[@Garrett0329]

I’m a VERY introspective person aswell. I believe life is very harsh yet beautiful. I personally had a near death experience I was hit by a car while on my bicycle late at night. I was in a medically induced coma and during that time I experienced unexplainable things…I could talk more about it but I’ll keep watching these types of videos and stay in my place

[@davidkailer5522]

Great video, Dr. Becky! I was wondering if you might do a video on the interplay between scientific discovery and technological advancement, and what future technology/engineering might help us break through (e.g. JWST allowing unprecedented observations) the currently unanswered questions. Just a thought, thanks for the great content!

[@davidstuart4489]

I suspect that the issue keeping us from answering how we get "something from nothing" relies on answering how "dark" is converted to "baryonic". Everything you've described in this excellent history lesson addresses observations of and theories regarding the observable universe (e.g., the baryonic universe). But because we can't "observe" anything else, we're forced to assume there is nothing other than the observable universe. There may, in fact, be a steady state foundation from which the baryonic universe emerges - a foundation we generally refer to as the dark universe consisting of dark energy and dark matter. And so I also suspect that clever cosmologists will, someday (probably not in my lifetime) discover enough about the dark universe that this question will be answered - the question(s) regarding the existence of a steady state universe that is unobservable (but implied) that yields a baryonic component that behaves in the ways we're able to observe and predict (with resonable certainty). Rather than relying on mythology, I personally believe that the relationship between the baryonic and dark components of "the universe [redefining the "universe" to include both], once understood, answers nearly all questions. The only question that can never be answered is whether there really ever was a beginning to the [redefined] universe.

[@Sun_Tzu10]

Dr.Becky ,I really love all your videos and the way you explain .Even though I am a middle school student I get to understand some concepts through your videos. I would even like if you start live question and answer sessions.

[@DrBecky]

I’ve done a few before - I always announce them on social media beforehand and canvas questions there too so keep an eye out

[@Sun_Tzu10]

@@DrBecky Sure

[@vladimirseven777]

Science with passion.

[@mikecurtis389]

Wish that you were my teacherwhen I was younger,I would be an astronomer now. In the static universe theory,wouldn't that new material thatvwas being created be changing the universe?

[@jerryschoofs895]

Ok if CMB started out as xrays, how old was the universe when the CMB had red shifted to visible light? If CMB was visible for a time, would spaced have glowed in all directions?

[@GabeTStarman]

I suppose we could have seen it, but it was like that during the recombination epoch, so the plasma that occupied the universe at that point would’ve been glowing and might have drowned it out. In other words, if you were to go back to the time you would instantly be vaporized by the temperatures of everything around you.

[@dibenp]

19:55 we ❤️ Editing Becky: keeping the faith, one frame at a time.

[@rootyroot]

"begin" is a human construct, the universe is infinity and had no begining, and also has no end