Is The Universe Infinite?

[@ScienceAsylum]

Correction: The torus at 5:15 only has positive curvature on the outside half. The inside half has negative curvature. (I thought I had posted this correction ages ago, but based on recent comments I realized I had forgotten.)

[@Fiercesoulking]

I want to point out that having the "universe" finite from a mathematical standpoint is actually really hard . There is also a solution with higher dimensions for a " finite" "universe" both come with problems . The one with curved space the problem is you define an inside by doing so you define an outside so existence continue outside. From a physic standpoint this might be enough since nothing interact with it but the outside continue infinite so 100% chance there is an another universe. Same goes when you use higher dimension to squeeze in a 3D universe each of them is basically a line which go mathematically from negative and positive infinity. There is a solution to make the universe finite but this one is really weird one and broken from a math perspective. Coming from the philosophic implication where everything happens which can happens and that infinity times in an infinite universe. Is to say everything which can happen happens only max once. From there on things get really weird because the universe fold then in a non linear way .... well kinda like quantum entanglement. There is also some weirdness going when you have exhaust all possibilities. Would that means when you watch further it would force the universe to create completely new possibilities? It is certainly a headache.

[@youareacoward8459]

The answer is, no, it's not.

[@Fiercesoulking]

@@youareacoward8459 ???

[@upandatom]

Your animations are really good. I was amazed by the past light cone at about 2 minutes. Hats off to you sir :)

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! The galaxies expanding was SO HARD to make accurate. The farther they are, the faster they're moving. It was really important to me that it behave like that in the animation.

[@ericklopes4046]

He has such a hard work with his videos, great videos, they don't get the amount of views they deserve thought. So, if Universe is flat, then it must be infinite. But, as our most accurate telescope has an error margin of 0.4%, according to the current explanatory models and available evidence, is it correct to say that the chance of the universe being finite is 0.4% (not taking into account the soccer ball hypothesis)?

[@vijeykrishnaa2230]

The Science Asylum Minutephysics was right! Pedantic!

[@zoltankurti]

The Science Asylum you didn't get it accurate tho. It gets the point accross, and I guess it is what you wanted. But in space-time diagramms, galaxies don't go sideways. :D That would mean rewritten pasts and all kind of crazy things. Rather their world lines would curve outwards.

[@wasoncethr7565]

@@ericklopes4046 you need bayes theorem for some perspective in regarding to the error logic you applied

[@joelcraig9803]

I'm not giving up on the doughnut universe. Its the only thing that truly explains why we see less mass in an expanding observable universe. Its being eaten.

[@ericklopes4046]

Lol, That what Hawkins meant when he said "I liked your theory of the universe being doughnut-shaped, Homer Simpson, I think I will steal your idea to myself".

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's also a shape that makes it easier for wormholes to be a thing... then again, do I really want worms in my doughnut?

[@rdean1647]

Joel Craig Shakespearean idiom from Hamlet meaning "to cause the bomb maker to be blown up with his own bomb". A petard is a small bomb used for blowing up gates and walls when breaching fortifications.z

[@thekornreeper]

Dark matter/energy maybe applicable here as well.

[@sunshinedaniela8572]

Joel Craig no...

[@DTG01134]

This is a really, really high quality video, it's a shame you don't have a ton of subscribers. Wish you the best!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@daffidavit]

He will, work spreads fast in KZbin.

[@ChompNom]

The spacetime diagram was amazing, I can see a lot effort put into that few seconds of animation

[@ScienceAsylum]

For real! That few seconds took hours.

[@ekrem_dincel]

@@ScienceAsylum wow you can just use some scaling and layer things for that. Did you draw it?

[@srpilha]

Looking Glass Universe brought me here, and I'm glad it did! Excellent video, I'm gonna have to binge-watch all the rest now. :P

[@ScienceAsylum]

Welcome!

[@Davideos]

Incredible video, like aways!! I just didn't understand one thing... You said that if the universe had positive curvature, then it could be shaped like a donut. I understand this if the triangle was drawn on the outer side of the donut (on the outer surface). However, if the triangle was drawn in the inner surface, it would have less than 180º because it would be just like making a triangle in a hyperboloid, which has a negative curvature. With this in mind, I searched and saw that in topology a donut can have zero gaussian curvature (like said in Wikipedia, in the 'Flat torus' section: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus). So I don't understand why an universe with positive curvature could be shaped like a donut. I would really appreciate if you could clarify this doubt I had. Keep up the good work ;)

[@ScienceAsylum]

You do have a point here, but before I answer, let's clarify a few things: 1) A "flat torus" is a special kind that has zero curvature, so that doesn't really apply to the torus that I had in the graphic. 2) I didn't say the universe was shaped like a torus... more like that it has torus slices (or cross-sections). Ok, now back to the point you have. You are correct that the torus (doughnut shape) has positive curvature some places, zero curvature some places, and negative curvature other places. Here's a better discussion than wikipedia has to offer: math.stackexchange.com/questions/495232/are-there-any-surfaces-that-contain-both-positive-and-negative-gaussian-curvatur However, the point I was trying to make is that a universe with torus slices could be finite based on the curvature... but I can see now how that part could come across (a bit) misleading.

[@Davideos]

Nice answer! Thanks!!

[@frysause934]

First video of yours I have watched, 6 min in I realized your are not just some crazy hack, but a legitimate crazy scientific hack. Subscribed.

[@filipebcs8]

Great videos, man! I just watched a whole bunch of them and a lot of things I didn’t quite understand seem a lot clearer to me now! Keep up the excellent work! Thank you!

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're very welcome! I'm glad they were helpful.

[@rjhhopewell41]

Today is the 1st time I came across your presentation. I watched 4 of them & read the 1st 75 reviews of each. They all say the same thing and I AGREE. You are awesome!! Between your explanation & presentation I actually understood/learned a lot. Thank you.

[@jaybee6701]

Crazy Science tickles my neurons and makes me happy! I love this channel!!!!

[@steeveedee4307]

This channel should be mandatory viewing to schools.

[@bosonbreeder]

KZbinrs with this level of quality content deserves subscribers guys. Tell your friends. Subs matters!

[@chrismcgarry3160]

4:25 SpaceTime Curvature Equation (FLRW Metric) : it's actually beautiful when slightly simplified! 6:15 That was exactly my reaction when I learned the Universe seems flat, even with our finest measurements! Grrrrr!!! I mean, we just need an infinitesimal deviation from 180°-triangles with significant confidence, and voilà, curvature! But probably not confirmed anytime soon!

[@datboy038]

“Why must you be this way” Universe: *psychotic laughter*

[@kabir09999]

Amazing content!! We were able to get our hands upon the basics only during our high school let alone understand in such details. Kids would be served so much better with your videos. I have a little kid I’ll show your videos to.

[@phoule76]

I love your reactions to the impatient questioning clone.

[@SSNReactorOperator]

“We’re the universe trying to understand itself.”

[@SanPendro]

Super fun to see the somewhat normopathic science speak colliding with the philosophy of infinitude. Instantly subscribed to your awesome channel! This video feels like calculating the amount of diapers needed for an incoming infinitely large shitload, taking into account the shape, fluidity and general direction the shit is going to take. While mentally improving the math of replacing saturated diapers with empty ones not letting slip the conservation of poop, nor the quantum of whole number diapers. In the end I was exchanging diapers so instantaneously fast, I could've just as well let the shit hit the fan and have less of a hassle cleaning up the now perfectly dispersed speckles of, well, lust? I mean, didn’t Einstein tell us that time and space are basically projected properties of energy, each other, vice versa and round about? How can we successfully define a finite structure, topology even, in a relativistic environment; let alone the universe (all of it)? From an epistemological viewpoint infinity can neither be proven nor disproven; it simply cannot be denied. Imagine flying at the very outskirts of the universe, leaning your hand towards the outer limit, faster than the relativistic expansion rate of your surroundings. Would your hand fall off? No, you would’ve just impacted the topology (ever so slightly) of the “expansion”, as the particles in your hand project their very own frame of space-time, they don’t need a space to move into. Why should we invent a different set of laws of nature just because we’re talking about projected spacial boundaries? When there is no falsifiable wall we could ever run into the whole question changes from “is there an end” to “I might have to think about relativity a little longer”. Whereas expansion is a reeeeaaaaal stretch for me, from everything I can observe it makes more sense to assume it is in fact collapsing, conflating, creating space as it falls into itself, stacking resonances, upending into its respective “inside”, effectively shrinking. It would not only create exactly that effect of “drifting apart galaxies” and could explain why the cosmic microwave background anomalies look astonishingly like earths own hemispheres, it also coincides with our concepts of gravity, space-time and the formation of dark matter. Watching your videos is a real mind-bending experience, thank you!

[@adityachk2002]

It is a mark of credibility that some combination of atoms can answer such questions on basis of sheer perseverance .....kudos to humanity

[@peckelhaze6934]

Stumbled across your site and find it excellent. I have now subscribed.

[@al1383]

I finally understand what “flat universe” is referring to! U da man

[@michaelsmith935]

Great animations, simple explanations, use of humor = fantastic videos

[@cocoa1996]

Yes! that was one of the most in depth videos you've done! Good job!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@cocoa1996]

***** also, nice work on the animations dude. I've tried to do it, and it took me like a whole day just to get the drawing to rotate! So I know how much hard work goes into it and all of us really appreciate it :-)

[@John_Smith_Dumfugg]

I'm watching this video late at night, and the transition from the normal format to the lady jarred me so much I thought I either nodded asleep and pressed the forward button, or I either fell asleep and blacked out. This is to say nothing about your videos, which I have been watching backwards in reverse order from your atom one b because of the reverse cliff hangers talking about the previous episodes lol

[@ScienceAsylum]

That'll happen if you fall asleep in the middle of a video. I've been there.

[@geobean4092]

Dear Nick; comments below assure me that having you cloned will be the best solution to our lousy educational system. Your clone enthusiast and your biggest fan in Houston.

[@Michael500ca]

This is one of the best explanations I have seen. Good job.

[@PrometheusZandski]

Really love your work. I could watch you 24/7. The comment at 1:18 "What you are looking at is the formation of the first ever hydrogen atoms" is not true. They are the first atoms to become visible (H, He, Li and Be) but the first atomic nuclei were formed about 3 minutes after T0. Between 10^-12 and 10^-6 seconds, quarks and electrons started forming. At 10^-6 seconds, the universe was cold enough for protons and neutrons to form. At 3 minutes, things were stable enough for H and He nuclei to form. At this point, electrons would bind and then be ripped from the nuclei. Only after 380,000 years were there enough neutral atoms to allow the universe to become transparent, and that is when we see the CMB for the first time.

[@bobm4378]

check your post! "the first atoms to become visible (H, He, Li and Be)" H stands for Hydrogen atoms....

[@PrometheusZandski]

@@bobm4378 I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. Could you please elaborate? Did I misstate something?

[@bobm4378]

@@PrometheusZandski you said The comment at 1:18 "What you are looking at is the formation of the first ever Hydrogen atoms" is not true." you said "They are the first atoms to become visible (H, He, Li and Be) but the first atomic nuclei were formed about 3 minutes after T0" --- what does H stand for?? Dunno where you get 'minutes' ?? --- SpaceDOTcom says 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was cool enough that Hydrogen could form.

[@brianmiller4466]

Ookla and Princess Ariel were wondering will the fractured pieces of their moon stay put? ROTFL Love the toons references, sometimes it helps the swelling go down. Keep up the awesome vids. pppppleease Eddy! lol

[@eiriklade93]

Love this video. This channel is a gem

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! Glad you like it.

[@Petrov3434]

Thanks heavens for your videos -- decisive, thoughtful, from fundamental definitions - ab ovo, sheer joy. Thank you sooo much !!

[@tejasrao6187]

Why does he have so few subscribers

[@wojtek9395]

Tejas Rao he is like the observable universe - needs time to see more subs

[@marciabarlow4704]

Tejas Rao, this has only now appeared on my horizon. Perhaps people have to enter a cue word to even get to these presentations, then once there one can subscribe.

[@cavernastrum]

Because most people get distracted by bellybutton lint... (or something else equally inane)

[@jaycorby]

It is all too complex for the 'average brain'. The majority of people like things that are tangible, easy to envision and understand. This kind of site is no different than presentations on theology, the nature of 'god' etc. - it's just too hard.

[@Slash1066]

It's unfortunately a damning reflection on society, people will watch some rap video in their millions or a monkey scratching its butt but few people it seems are interested in trying to wrap their minds around these kind of concepts. Still less than 100k subs after all the years and all the content is way too low, for me this is the best content on KZbin bar none.

[@benjaminsharef6589]

Another wonderful video! Hope to see more soon--keep up the great work! :)

[@alonzopatton7663]

thankyou for this article, it is thought inspiring and also humorious, thus memorable.. is that not the basis of learning? stay crazy..

[@Etothe2iPi]

1:37 what do you mean by "the edge"? Great video, great channel, subscribed.

[@gumunduringigumundsson9344]

Not infinite but big enough to fit both of us.. well done 1.

[@LoveAndPeaceOccurs]

Thank You .... so much ... You explain this Far better than anyone else.

[@IoDavide1]

Short answer: We don't know. End...

[@thejasonknightfiascoband5099]

Of course but you're human so You'll probably know where I'm getting at here... somewhere embedded deeply into our DNA is this ego that makes us feel so good & important if we pretend we know every god damn thing.

[@jurusco]

@Hellstormkj64 999 "believe me" why? i strong believe in it, so believe me.

[@garrethcampbell6134]

I love all of you're videos! Even if I don't understand some of them haha keep up the good work

[@samuelowens000]

I just got the side note thing! 😆

[@ki4dbk]

Ok. Its awesome that you addressed the Language distinction first. Nice

[@cjheaford]

Came here and learned some good science that was well explained. Laughed too. YEAH TRIG! LMAO

[@ambershah5741]

this is the kind of question I would ask my parents as a kid but never get answered in a satisfying manner

[@chickenfrend]

Donut universes can also be flat. They have zero Gaussian curvature.

[@illusionz9053]

I love Looking Glass Universe. Her videos on quantum mechanics are amazing. Plus she always sounds like she's going to laugh which is oddly enjoyable.

[@ScienceAsylum]

I agree. She's great. It was wonderful to work with her on this project.

[@RickClark58]

Very good summary for the reason why the universe is flat, as far as we know at least. We know the universe is expanding (and accelerating it seems) so a nice follow up would be what is the universe expanding into? I know the answer (into itself) but I would like to see your expert explanation. Also I don't think most people realize that space is expanding faster than the speed of light so the observable universe is shrinking and one day the night sky will be quite dark.

[@KnowBuddiesLP]

Rick Clark i think that was a doctor who episode

[@RickClark58]

KnowBuddies LP The Doctor knows everything! :)

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's infinite, asking what it expands /into/ kinda loses meaning. Good question though. I'm saving this for comment responses.

[@RickClark58]

The Science Asylum Agreed. The question keeps coming up though since expansion seems to imply "into something" but as you say that "something" is infinite. It is hard to wrap your mind around.

[@ericklopes4046]

The only thing I see expanding into infinity is my senility.

[@alexandertownsend3291]

I have two questions. 1. I have heard that there is three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. How do we know that there are not multiple dimensions of time? 2. In the event that the universe had a non flat topology where the angles add up to some angle other than 180 degrees wouldn't the flat topology of the paper you are using, prevent you from drawing such a triangle with accurate side lengths and angles?

[@datboy038]

1. Time is a dimension itself. It’s a direction it’s distance hell you could prolly measure it with meters Don’t think of dimension as a different place it’s another axis.

[@seanspartan2023]

We're gonna need a bigger triangle!

[@dougg1075]

This show is so well done it’s CRAZY

[@stefanoiaconissi2727]

3:55 ... ""It's called the Flint Lockwood Diatonic Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator. Or for short: The FLYMSYVDFER!!!!"" "Lmnendvser?" "FLINSEVDFAR" "Omaneverdvrvr?" "FL! SUH! FDFEFR!!"" (Quotes)

[@northbaseuk882]

Hmm. Occams Razor is a hard one to apply to the topography of the universe when we see geometric shapes and patterns all over nature. In chemistry we see molecules and crystal structures having prism like shapes and hexagonal structures. They appear far more common than toruses and spheres in nature that's for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out the topography of the universe was like this.

[@manikdas1429]

U r awesome

[@PaulJohnsonM]

The music was pretty jammin' in this one.

[@Jano2]

Man this video was just ...hard im not sure if i understood the part with the curvature

[@ScienceAsylum]

Cosmology is brain-melting stuff. It took me years to finally understand it. These kinds of ideas take more than one video ;-)

[@jaycorby]

The Hindus of India in ancient times developed an elaborate theology on the cyclical universe idea...birth, rebirth, death, birth, rebirth, death and on and on...into infinity. How could they have 'known' this thousands of years ago when up until the 1920s it was believed that the entire universe consisted only of the Milky Way?

[@ahappyimago]

Jay Corby Hindus didn’t know about topology lol

[@StuffIwannaRemember]

Yes! Question sufficiently answered sir! The proof is beautiful

[@alexandertownsend3291]

What was proven?

[@ralphyfabri4435]

Why doesn't this channel Have 1,000,000 subscribers ? 🤔🤔🤔

[@ZeusHelios]

Great vids love the funny parts and are my favourite parts. Keep up the great and funny vids

[@alonzopatton7663]

the universe may be infinite, while the bubble of the observable universe may not be..

[@chesi_7_0_79]

Alonzo Patton after the event horizon, it is most likely just empty darkness, just space without the stars and quemical components that we have inside our universe bubble.

[@fitnesspoint2006]

Chesi _7_0_7 ahhh no space is not empty...no such thing as empty darkness

[@DavidHeizer]

"Event horizon" is for black holes. It only looks like a boundary because that's as far back in time as we can see. But there's no reason to assume there aren't other galaxies just like ours past that point for whom we are outside their visible horizon.

[@gustavelchapo2919]

you should advertise this channel sir , this is brain matter gold mine...i feel like a genius everytime i visit this page !!

[@cormacb2326]

The universe can't be infinite and thinking it is infinite is ridiculous, the universe started at the big bang and has been expanding since then, we know that space does not expand infinitely fast, or else atoms could not possibly hold themselves toghether. So, using the most basic logic we can determine that the universe is finite in size. However, I suppose a couterpoint to my point could be that the universe was still infinite in size at the big bang, it was just that all of the infinite parts of space where just infinitly close to one another and the space in between those parts increased as time went on, creating the illusion of the universes expansion. However, even if you do assume this, the idea of the universe being infinite is still immpossible because of the converation of energy/mass. You cannot create new mass unless you convert engery into mass, likewise you cannot create new energy unless you convert mass into energy. The reason this is because you cannot increase the amount of energy/mass in the universe, however, if the universe infinte in size it will have infinte mass/energy, meaning you can not increase the energy/mass of the universe because it is at infinte. If this is true it means that you can create energy/mass out of nothing, meaning you could give something infinite energy and thus travel faster than light and travel through time. However this is simply not possible, if it was than space travel would be incredibly easy. Also, why does the most simple hypothiesis have to be correct, most of the time it is, but it doesn't have to be.

[@olleaberg7271]

I love how this channel is very detailed and deep in the topics but isn’t complicated to understand on purpose like the channel “PBS space time” often is. (TLDR: it’s obvious that this channel is produced by a real teacher that have had to explain this to students).

[@eriksaari4430]

pbs is by a real professor too. maybe his students are just smarter than average

[@honey4xi]

Big Bang started 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has been expanding ever since. Let assume that the universe can expand up to the speed of light, the universe has been expanding (13.7 billion years times the speed of light) *80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles* from the source. _So, the universe is finite._

[@matthewalexander9277]

That's logical, but we've measured the expansion of the universe to actually be moving faster than the speed of light; the galaxies are held together by their mass, but the matter-less sections between them are expanding outward faster than anything we've ever observed. Since these slices of spacetime are without matter, they are not beholden to the speed of light constant.

[@honey4xi]

*The universe is space, time, matters, light and dark energy.* Light (hot) energy does the pushes in the universe, while the dark (cold) energy does the stickiness in the universe. Matters do the pulls or the gravity in the universe. 😎 Space expands depends on the speed of energy (light & dark.)

[@honey4xi]

Matthew Alexander Sarnovsky | Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist, predicted that NOTHING can go faster than the speed of light. 🤗

[@docfisher948]

infinity doesn't exist

[@Milesco]

@ Ki Le: It's true that nothing (emphasis on the word "thing") can go faster than light. But *_space_* can expand faster than light. Space itself is not matter or energy, so is not limited by the speed of light.

[@DavidMaurand]

that's a killer chart at 2:00

[@alejandrozarzuelo5535]

I still bet for a finite universe

[@alejandrozarzuelo5535]

and I think you cannot pick infinite small pieces of space-time I HATE INFINITES

[@garetclaborn]

if you take an inch and subdivide into 2 half inches, then subdivide to 4 quarter inches, 8 eighth inches, etc etc there wont be a point where you arrive at 'infinity infinitieths inches' but you are able to understand that the process could continue infinitely and the ratio would be maintained. ie you always have "x elements of 1/x length" so *as that approaches infinity* you can say, there are certain properties that apply to all elements in this length no matter how subdivided they are or how many. these properties must also exist at infinity. but THEN you get into a real tricky thing. that infinity is special, it's the infinity reached by subdividing an inch repeatedly. it "reaches" infinity at a different rate than say, cutting the elements by 4 every time instead of 2. to know how to continue past that, there's is a concept called 'aleph-naught' which is like the "first" infinity reached by the natural numbers. since i cant type the symbol for aleph, i'll call it N (it looks like an N). so if I were to say 2 times N, both N and 2N are infinity, but the set of all even numbers approaches 2N at the same "rate" as the set of all natural numbers approach 1N. that's not really technically the right way to say but its a fairly accurate way to conceptualize it. just like you can have infinite conceptual points in an inch, you can then say i have 2 *of this particular infinity* in 2 inches i like to think of infinities as a range with an undeterminate count of elements inside it. well underterminate, fractally increasing or tessellated usually. but the idea is that it's easier to treat infinities as a special type of range.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

Too bad the Universe doesnt care about what you think.

[@garetclaborn]

if care for X is defined as as applying work toward creating, maintaining, persisting or achieving X, then the universe must certainly care about what i think simply because the result of the universe contains me thinking ;)

[@mikejones-vd3fg]

only time will tell...

[@JustMe-vz3wd]

The universe is amazing. So much to learn.

[@tjsogmc]

So if an observer was at the edge of what we can see, would they see the same bubble as us with themselves at the center? That is to say, would they see nothing in one direction and everything in the other? Or would we appear to be on the edge of their universe with themselves at the center of their own observable universe? Is the "center " always relative to the observer?

[@a9c]

They would see galaxies we cannot see due to the speed of light and expansion of the universe, but their view would be exactly like ours: no center, no edge. We can only see light that has had time to reach us. The universe could fold back in on itself somehow (finite universe). If the universe is infinite it was also infinite before the Big Bang. Infinity expanding into infinity. Crazy stuff to think about!

[@Charismatic_Nerd]

Underrated channel 👍🏻

[@shrikant8446]

according to 1st law of thermodynamic energy neither be created nor be destroyed but the energy is formed in the universe that's why we use it

[@thelobster6556]

Nice jurassic park t-shirt. Impossible to miss

[@richardsleep2045]

Mathematicians talked to me about "unbounded" rather than infinite. Anyway, thanks as always :)

[@kyzercube]

oohh Kepler's nested solids fantasm on the table at 2:20 :p

[@ScienceAsylum]

My artsy friend made it for my birthday one year. It's the same friend that designed my channel logo.

[@madamsloth]

Plz come back to this! I can’t wrap my mind around a flat universe

[@MaximilienRobespierre1]

Great video. But isn't infinite just a mathematical concept, there isn't really such thing as "infinite" Also if someone is expanding then it can't be infinite as where is it expanding to?.Sorry these are probably dumb questions :(

[@ScienceAsylum]

1) I would argue the same point that infinity doesn't really exist, so the universe can't be infinite. Unfortunately, that's not something we can prove one way or the other. 2) If the universe is infinite, there's still no reason to say it can't expand. You just have more infinity over time. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnOXpZ1vmJWpfZo

[@The268170]

"...and what's up with this mole on my shirt?" 0:10

[@mvolestrangler]

my favourite so far.

[@quarksgluons]

Follow up question: If the universe is infinite, does that mean that there is matter everywhere or do we reach a point where there is "empty space" and no matter?

[@ScienceAsylum]

We don't know... but it's standard procedure to assume our corner of the universe isn't special, so I would say the matter/energy density across the entire universe matches what it is here in our observable universe.

[@poseidonc1259]

We’re gonna need a bigger triangle! Best Meme/movie reference ever!

[@phoule76]

good, yes. best is hyperbolic.

[@workhardism]

Was gonna say the same thing.

[@Hythloday71]

Whether 'average' has physical meaning is context dependent. In many circumstances the notion of average contains quite accurately the idea of a typical value. But in many other circumstances it is not, so we choose other metrics.

[@abhaysharma3394]

You are far better than my physics teacher.

[@jesusk1358]

I bet your physics teacher teaches you exactly what you need to know and no guesses.

[@UltimateBargains]

From any point in the observable universe, everything is moving way from the observer. Farther objects appear to move faster than nearer objects. This implies an infinite universe, because every point sees uniformly distributed galaxies in every direction and distance. On other hand, cosmic inflation implies that reality is similar to the surface of an inflating sphere. The sphere surface is sprinkled with dots representing galaxies. As the sphere inflates at a constant rate, all dots move away from all other dots at speeds increasing with distance, which is what we see. Galaxies appear to accelerate faster at farther distances, but the real cosmos is inflating at a constant rate in a higher dimension from the dimensions we can see.

[@louisadriaens764]

Great video Science Asylum, I really enjoy the longer content videos. And as always very good explained. But I'm gonna go a little off topic here: I still have a question about gravity. I've watched your videos about gravity being a fictitious force, and I understand that, as an example, the ISS is moving in a straight line but it looks like it isn't due to bending of space-time. And I also understand that it isn't accelerating, it's got its kinetic energy from itself and it's not de accelerating because there is no air in space;so no friction. But I don't get how, as an example, if you drop an apple, it falls. Where does the kinetic energy - the force - come from if gravity isn't a force? You don't throw the apple to the ground, it just falls on its own. In other words I don't get the case where the object is in freefal. Please help me because I do not understand this. Also, I recently found your channel and I think it has great content and i think you deserve a lot more subscribers, so I also shared your videos about gravity with some people I know. I hope you can help me out with this problem and sorry about going off topic but I wanted to be sure you would see my comment so I posted this on your most recent video.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Hi Louis, thanks for sharing the videos. It helps the channel for sure! As for free fall, general relativity is tricky because you have to think in 4 dimensions. Most gravity, like the gravity on Earth, is the result of TIME curvature, no space curvature. When you let go of an apple without /throwing/ it downward, you get this impression that it started from rest... which it did, but only in space. EVERYHIHNG is in motion in time. Once the apple is released, the straightest line it can travel in time includes motion in space (because the Earth curves time into space). I hope that helps.

[@louisadriaens764]

The Science Asylum Thank you so much! This really helped me out, I forgot you had to think as space and time as - sort of - the same thing. ☺️

[@ScienceAsylum]

Also, I wanted to say that I really enjoy making longer content. It's sad that I don't have the time to do it for every single video.

[@louisadriaens764]

The Science Asylum Well, I really wouldn't mind having to wait a little bit longer for each video if they would be longer anyway.

[@Sultan_A]

Very Very Good, Keep It Up! ❤

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you! 🙂

[@zodiacfml]

Quite a difficult question because we truly don't know what CMB means for the universe. This is the reason why scientists don't stop at getting an accurate temperature/frequency of the CMB. I'm also not comfortable with Hubble's discovery. While it is true that galaxies are measured to be red shifting at accelerated pace, it doesn't immediately mean that the universe is expanding.

[@andycopeland7051]

Cool shirt. Hope anyone who liked the films reads the books.

[@toknowledge1371]

I am a big fan of your Explanation,

[@nathanbryan8655]

Yep! always constantly changing, and replacing and over lapping space and time.

[@rebeccalopez2997]

I really enjoy these videos after I take my meds.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I get inspired by bubbles and oil in water and how fluid dynamics and wind/temperature variations behave. Densities, pressure, static/electromagnetic charges. Can't help but be curious about Multiverse possibly?

[@TheJohnblyth]

Best science teacher

[@bigkirbyhj666]

With current understanding standings of mathematics and physics yes* but we have no practical way to test it (yet).

[@raulcoronado6024]

Thank you👍👌😆

[@imarjun1217]

Nice video .... awesome animations.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! They take a long time.

[@Brick2buddies]

If the universe is infinite earth is the center. So is Mars, and so is the center of the Andromeda Galaxy. Because there's an infinite amount of distance in any location 7 has just as many numbers greater than it as smaller numbers. Therefore 7 can be considered the center of the number line. In the same way, there is the same amount of space in any direction, so any point can be considered the center. So the next time someone says "the universe doesn't revolve around you" you can correct them

[@pwnmeisterage]

0:20 "Universe" defined as "all of space and everything in it, etc" 0:53 "Observable Universe" has a boundary about 13.8B lightyears (and years) away in every direction 1:41 "Space has expanded [since 13.8B years ago]" to a boundary about 46.5B lightyears away in every direction So space is part of the universe and it's expanded beyond the limits of the universe? We're adjusting for a relativistic time difference from what point of reference?

[@ScienceAsylum]

1. I'm just trying to distinguish between the "entire universe" and the "observable universe." We know how big the observable part is, but only a vague idea of how big the entire universe is. 2. Even though the edge of the observable universe _looks_ like it's 13.8 billion light years away, that was 13.8 billion years ago (because light takes time to travel). The edge has expanded away since then... to 46.5 billion light years away. It's called the "comoving distance."

[@pwnmeisterage]

Thanx!

[@DizzzyWiz]

The word universe emplies a verse, like to a song, but containing all data and all data combinations, like a song that never ends.

[@Doones51]

I subscribed, but i will never be able to keep up with him. great stuff, as usual

[@damianfrizzell-brolly7137]

happy 50.5k subs to u

[@vasukinagabhushan]

Lucid is very lucid in explanations. 👍🏽🙏🏽

[@Scavenger82]

Reminds me of the scene from 'A Beautiful Mind' where Connely's character compares knowing the universe is infinite to knowing you're in love.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Good movie.

[@mrp8488]

What I'm confused about is if you can only see 13.8 billion light years, how did you come up with 46.5, and not 57, or 75, etc?

[@ScienceAsylum]

So, you know that stuff we see at 13.8 billion light-years away? Well, it was at that distance 13.8 billion _years ago._ In that time, it must have traveled more, so we project that motion forward in time and _predict_ that stuff is _now_ 46.5 billion light-years away.

[@joechrow8341]

Love when so many people try to answer this question...The answer is simple...We will NEVER know because we are not SUPPOSED to know...Infinite Space just "sounds" insane...Many people cant come to grips with that...But again we are CLUELESS to exactly how big the Universe is or exactly WHAT the Universe is...

[@ScienceAsylum]

Just because we can't know something, it doesn't mean we can't try to science it anyway. We might learn something else along the way that we didn't even know to ask about.