A Big Bang Beginner’s Guide | Compilation

[@carbon_no6]

Reid Riemers is without a doubt my favorite host on SciShow Space.

[@just_kos99]

I was lucky enough to attend a panel at a Seattle-area sci-fi con, with Dr. Robert L. Forward. After the panel, he was gracious enough to answer my questions, lol! I told him I didn't quite understand, so he explained like you did, using an un-inflated balloon as an example. He said, Get a balloon and put dots on it evenly, then blow it up. The dots will appear to move away from each other as it expands. Oh man, he was so awesome. Very much a gentleman and patient with my queries! He presented the data that the farther away an object is, the faster it's moving away from us. I was so intrigued, thinking -- what if it's FASTER than the speed of light?! (Not realizing that space-time can expand as fast as it wants to). (BTW, here's a tip if you love hard science fiction like I do: Read "Dragon's Egg" and its sequel "Starquake", by Dr. Forward. Extraordinarily good!)

[@PryingBlaze.]

Still doesn't answer my questions.

[@PryingBlaze.]

So, I don't do Sci-Fi.

[@sjonjones4009]

The Big Bang should be called the Cosmic Expansion Event to match the Cosmic Background evidence we've been able to collect. The former term is good for teaching the concept to 5-year olds.

[@NewMessage]

It's not the size of the bang, it's how you bang it!

[@DurokSubaka]

5:51 he said nuke-u-ler and the editor pointed it out, ha ha

[@sirwaldo999]

The CMB is what I miss most about old televisions. Turn to not a channel and you could give a person direct evidence of the big bang. Hard to argue against evidence

[@StephenGoodfellow]

JWT: It doesn't seem conceivable that these fully formed galaxies so close to the Big Bang could have come into existence in so short a time. If these galaxies exist where the Big Bang predicted there was a "Dark Ages", it would follow that cosmic redshift, which was used to predict this phenomenon, must be a misinterpretation of the data. By extension, the CMB interpretation, which hinges on the Big Bang and the cosmic redshift is also open for review. Interesting times.

[@koffiegoeroe]

If the big bang was a comment it would be 'FIRST'

[@alexmcd378]

Well played

[@coletrain9173]

Actually it might be the 100th. We don't know what was before the big bang. The start of the universe is still unknown even if the big bang is true. We just won't know what was before it.

[@Nevertook]

Who typed it, why, and on what?

[@robertcampomizzi7988]

In 380 000 years this comment will be illuminating.

[@robertcampomizzi7988]

@@Nevertook Who/what: the universe How: imprinted itit's the cosmic background radiation... Why: the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.

[@UtahSustainGardening]

Yup, it is alway good to see Katelyn again, even if it is in an older video!

[@marksusskind1260]

yay, Caitlin Hofmeister and her cheery face

[@DoggosAndJiuJitsu]

Quick question, if speed slows relative time then how do we know how long it took for cosmic inflation? If it happened faster than light, which is the theory, then it could have taken a more appropriate amount of time than nearly instantaneously. There's a paradox there, but the question remains!

[@gmsherry1953]

13:03 I just can't shake the feeling that the redshift should be BIGGER, not smaller. At the time it emitted the light we see, the supernova was a certain distance away, not merely moving away from us but accelerating away from us. Its redshift is a measure of its instantaneous velocity, right? At the moment we're observing it? That velocity is higher than its average velocity (because it's accelerating). So the redshift should be greater than the distance would imply. I know I must be wrong, but I don't know why, and reading about it doesn't help.

[@mastod0n1]

RIP SciShow Space. Still miss you

[@ebob4177]

Nice. Can't wait to become a professional Big Banger.

[@MosheMaserati]

I'm still waiting for an update on the Type 1A problem.

[@williandalsoto806]

I don't usually watch these compilations, but I'm glad that I gave this one a shot!

[@sicfxmusic]

OK.

[@_maxgray]

I really enjoy the compilation videos! I like to think I watch every video, but somehow there's always at least one I missed before. It's also great to see the broader context connecting topics. Maybe you'll enjoy other compilation videos they've done too!

[@williandalsoto806]

@@_maxgray You're right, maybe I will!

[@_MrOcean]

With all the black holes we know about now, couldn't the fact that the big bang was essentially a starting point from which things expand from, be actually the other side of a black hole? ie. No big bang at all just an exit from a black hole somewhere? Just a thought.

[@kielvostro]

I still feel bad for the pigeons tho.

[@jamesharmer9293]

Nice shirt !!

[@buhbird4698]

So there is no real “center” of the universe but are there any ideas on what is at the edge of universe

[@marksusskind1260]

Everywhere is the center. Everywhere is the edge.

[@buhbird4698]

@@marksusskind1260 wow yeah that’s true I feel kinda dumb now

[@GameOverAus]

SciShow is great, i look forward to weekly stuff that blows my mind. Keep it up Ladies and Gents :) as for the Big Bang, i'm sure there's lots of people that believe they are the centre of the universe. What if the observations are different for who sees them, so if i looked i would see it slightly different to if you look and thus reality is in "the eye of the beholder" and we are each in our own Big Bang. Another option is our universe is just an atom/black hole within a bigger reality and the Big Bang was just a supernova .

[@tobyihli9470]

Something that I take offense to is the scientists dismissal of the original definition of the word, “space.” For thousands of years we have referred to the void that exists in all directions, to infinity, within which the universe is contained. The universe may be expanding, but the void, space, extends out further, still.

[@BetzalelMC]

IMO: the Big Bang both “relatively “ happened an infinite time ago and yet it is still happening, and will continue to happen forever! Simply a result of theory I’m working on 😊🎉(note: it does not seem to discredit nor try to disprove any current ‘relatively accepted’ theories; if anyone reading this cares)

[@jacobosgood3513]

I love how Kaitlyn totally dodged the Crisis in Cosmology by not mentioning that the Cepheid Variable numbers come out significantly differently than the CMB numbers.

[@drsatan7554]

Did you also love how these are literally all clips from old videos? I'm somewhat familiar with the cosmology crisis but I've never heard of this "cepheid variable numbers/CMB numbers" issue As I understand it a cepheid variable is a star who's brightness varies. How is what numbers in regards to them relevant to the cosmic microwave background?

[@jacobosgood3513]

@@drsatan7554 You're right, here a "variable" is a star whose light varies. The most well known of this class are pulsars. So like K was saying, specific types of variables can be counted on to always be approximately uniform in absolute brightness, allowing us to calculate our distance to it by measuring the amount of redshift that has occurred. Do this for tons and tons of stars and you get a rough idea of our own location in the universe via something akin to triangulation. Then you notice that everything is moving away from us. The "farther away" you look, the "older" you see. By looking as "far away" as we can we get an idea of the age of the universe. A similar, though much more involved, process is used to model the age of the universe via the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The Crisis arises that both methods are solid in the maths, conform to experimental results, and seem to be perfectly valid. The problem is the numbers at the ends of the equations don't align, and in fact keep diverging the more data we give them. It worth noting here that the "Crisis" is more concerned with the rate of the expansion of the universe than the age of the universe, but the two are intertwined in such a way that errors in one are linked to errors in the other.

[@turkeyrat6429]

BALLER VIDEO

[@ag135i]

The scary presenter guy is back with a bang.

[@maxmustermann2417]

This is about the good "Big Bang Theory".

[@mcknottee]

Hank @1:16 "...got converted into matter, which eventually coalesced into stars and planets, and other wonderful things like dogs." You spelled 'cats' wrong. 😸

[@FunnyFany]

Two things can be true at once.

[@scottbruner9987]

Hey Reid, Paul Shillito called....he wants his shirt back.

[@olafsigursons]

How do we know it's space that is expanding and not time?

[@christianadam2907]

Because we observe space expanding, not time. duh! 😏

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

Hahahaha SO, are you *Sure* we are not shrinking??

[@undercoverduck]

@@christianadam2907 That's the thing though, I don't think you can discern space vs time expansion using the redshift method as the function of a wave is dependent on both, a shorter wavelength (space) = higher frequency (1/time) and vice versa.

[@undercoverduck]

Though, aren't space and time technically the same thing? This whole spacetime thing? I know photophysics quite well (I think) but not whatever branch of physics would deal with a question like OP's.

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

Alright, since you don't appreciate a science-y joke, let me explain. @@undercoverduck you plot the wave on a space vs time axis, how is one equal to the other? Similarly, @undercoverduck, space-time is the concept that we live in 3 dimensions of space AND one in time. How is this "the same thing"?

[@BytebroUK]

That's it. You said "new-kew-ler" and not "new-clear". Get in the Sea!

[@rickjames5998]

this Bald Guy almost sounds like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[@JeremiahEddington-s4b]

what if: space and matter and time are infinite... and expansion is just a smaller infinite (matter with in space) expanding into a bigger infinite (space itself)... and cmb is just old old old light from reeeaallly stars and reeeaally far away galaxies that got stretched into radio waves... or can we just agree that science is just explaining what god did?

[@turan4713]

why is there no turkish translation

[@agreene638]

How do we know there was only one big bang?

[@kuntamdc]

Almost first!

[@joette5333]

black holes can't hold all that matter forever BIG BANG !

[@holofish]

Nu-cu-lar!!

[@roobscoob47]

Spank the Hank~ k~

[@ZennExile]

Can we stop calling it a bang tho? It was more like the big dimming. The universe was ultra dense ultra hot uniform information all compressed into a single tiny point, but it didn't explode outward. The energy radiating from the center just condensed into matter and the difference in density between matter and information is... drastic. So everything had to expand very quickly as it cooled and condensed into matter. There was no bang. More like the triple point of water, but everywhere instantly.

[@roanbrand7358]

I do believe universe is finite, although very big. Just too hard to for me to believe its infinite, meaning infinite version of us all somewhere

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

Infinite extent in space doesn't imply that there are infinitely many versions of any particular element. An infinite universe could be completely empty, or contain a finite amount of energy/mass, for instance. Or, due to random fluctuations, contain any number of finite, unique pathways for development.

[@nineonine9082]

Universe could be infinite, but matter finite, so you could go past the border but just find nothing natural out there, potential for secret out of bounds alien structures though =P

[@RantingThespian]

Please stop it with the compilations. Every once in a while is fine, but not every week!

[@PryingBlaze.]

BIG BANG QUESTION FOR ALL PHYSICIST WORLD RENOWN. Where did the mass that exploded originate from, that is said to have exploded in the Big Bang? Peradventure, anyone can prove to me where the pre-existing mass came from which allowed substance to form before substance existed; then, you must explain exactly who wrote the laws of physics which came into effect at the exact time (by trial and error of course?) for the "materialization" of all we can see? As all physicist well know, everything visible operates on laws of physics. Man has never written not one law of physics; yet, he continues to discover law after law. So who wrote the Law of Physics that initiated the big bang? Moreover, if evolution is so dependant upon trial and error: how did the first big bag come to be exactly 100% correct and accurate on its first trial, yet all other claims of evolution require millions of repetitive trials to reach perfection? Riddle me these things you smart people?

[@drsatan7554]

We don't know yet. Not knowing doesn't disprove what we do know The laws of physics are not comparable to humans laws which need to be written. Implying they are is a false equivalence logical fallacy Evolutionary Biology is not the same as the colloquial, non scientific usage of evolution which just means change over time. Evolutionary Biology has nothing to do with the big bang How do you know its 100% correct? How do you know it isn't 95% correct but still functional? How do you know its "the first trial"?

[@PryingBlaze.]

Words. Only words. I am tired of the lies. Who wrote those laws. Did the laws do the trial and error bit before deciding which law to explode with? How does evolution, having no mind in the evolving state to think with, know when it erred and how to start over? No answer yet. Where did the matter that banged come from? Who wrote the laws of physics? Not discovered them?

[@anullhandle]

You ask a lot of a youtube comment section. The big bang wasn't big and wasn't an explosion. Get over it. We're just stuck with the name. What happened at the singularity is unknown. What happened after the singularity has evidence and scientific theory. You're conflating abiogenesis, expansion, universe, visible universe and biological evolution. There was no 100% right. There is no fine tuning. That's mostly a misunderstanding of probability. Evolution works on a population not an individual. It gets it close enough for government work. A look at the comedy of errors "designed" into the current apex ape should convince you of that. If I didn't know any better I'd think you were trying to debunk science because as a creationist, ya got nothing. Apologies if you're not.

[@PryingBlaze.]

@@anullhandle Who wrote those laws?. How did any law of physics develop without any existent matter for application thereof? Where did those laws come from?. If this "platform" is too small for my questions it isn't because of space but mental cognitions.

[@PryingBlaze.]

@@drsatan7554 Not being able to prove it dis-knows it for me. Not knowing may not disprove, but Not knowing is not knowing. I can not know what is not proven. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. But for wizards who peep (Isaiah 8:19) the question wouldn't arise to begin.

[@indianastan]

I don't believe in the big bang theory. I believe universe has no age. It's always been. No. Beginning no end. Just like it's "" Creator ""

[@eveningstarnm3107]

Rapid scene changes in video presentations are debilitating to people of all ages. One would expect professionals to know that, and to know how much damage they're doing to their presentations by making them incomprehensible due to a total lack of natural pauses. This is terrible video production.

[@ac9206]

Another 'nothing new' compilation from Sci-show-repeat...

[@m.c.4674]

But how can you expand if you are already at the place you are expanding to .

[@alexmcd378]

Sort of like a balloon inflating. All the points on the balloon are there at the start, but they are also further apart as the balloon inflates. This is of course wildly simplified

[@m.c.4674]

@@alexmcd378 I am talking about points in space . How can something move from A to B if it's already at B.

[@alexmcd378]

Nevermind, I see they used the balloon analogy in the video

[@m.c.4674]

Yeah . Not directed towards you, but every explanation seems like a evasion .

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

The hard thing to get one's head around is that the universe doesn't appear to be expanding "to" anywhere. The whole universe was condensed within a very small volume - there wasn't anywhere "outside" the universe to expand into. The balloon analogy is ok in some respects, but a downside is that our mental models tend to see the balloon expanding into our 3D space as it inflates. Instead, every point in space is accelerating away from every other point

[@generaldurandal3568]

14:42 The why is in the Bible.

[@FreedomAnderson]

It is also in many other holy books for different reasons.

[@coletrain9173]

"origin story". Not quite. We just won't be able to know what was before. Could be the 100th time this "bang" has happened. It's cool, but I'm sick of it being called the beginning. Their is zero evidence that matter didn't exist before it. We simply don't know the origin of matter. It's really cool we've been able to see evidence for something so far in the past though.

[@quirkyMakes]

"Know" is the wrong word. "Guess" would be the better answer

[@generaldurandal3568]

2 Peter 3 : 8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

[@Justinsox39]

I honestly just don’t think the theory makes sense.

[@drsatan7554]

Why not? Does absolutely everything make sense to you?

[@KaiseruSoze]

Good choir boys are also good students. Religious skeptics or science skeptics are still skeptics. And until you reproduce a big bang in the laboratory, it's pretty much still 'creationism'. If you use math to tell a story and hand waving and teach it in a university... it's still "just a story" ... just like a biblical story.

[@anullhandle]

Jack Martinelli, lol, troll harder.

[@daddymuggle]

The question of a centre of the universe is interesting. We're all at the centre of our own observable universes, of course, by definition. But a centre of the universe? If the universe is finite in size, then (depending on the overall curvature of spacetime - I assume here that it's flat) it must have a centre. On the other hand, if the universe is infinite in size, it has always been infinite.

he has to be related to David Koechner.

[@_SimpleJack_]

Why can't Americans pronounce nuclear?