Universe

[@AsydicWaters]

Someone put forth the effort to make this comprehensible, and fun to watch with great music and little sound effects. It makes me feel like I'm in a dream. They did that for us.

[@stussymishka]

this channel is so amazing/underrated and sparked my interest in science as kid. 💯

[@cassiopeiaproject]

song is Dominate by Aaron Wheeler album is Futurescapes publisher is ZFC Music you can find it at Firstcom.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@Summeryear2008 To get the precise answer, calculus is required. However, we can come pretty close with an iterative process as follows. After 10 seconds, he is still 98.9m away (99-10+9.9), after ten more (20secs) he is 98.9-10+9.88=98.78m; after 30 secs, he is 98.67m away. Repeat this process until he is there ad you get the approximate answer of about 480 seconds. Calculus uses an infinite number of intervals to get the exact answer.

[@ThinAndWoeful]

@Summeryear2008 I know this is probably too late, but what the problem comes down to is a 1st order differential EQ. You can set up the walking distance as follows: w(t+∆t)=(1+∆t/100)w(t)-∆t which can be written: (w(t+∆t)-w(t))/∆t=w(t)/100-1 which becomes: w'(t)-(1/100)w(t)=-1 which has the solution: w(t)=100+Ce^(0.01t) which, when given the initial position of the guy at t=0, yields: w(t)=100-e^(0.01t) You can solve for t when w(t)=0 (when he's done), and get t ≈ 460.52s

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The redshift you describe is the cosmological redshift, and it is due to the stretching of space during the time the light was traveling to us. Unlike the Doppler redshift, the cosmological redshift does not reflect the recessional velocity of the source either at the time the light was emitted or at the time the light reaches us.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

We have an audio technician on staff who creates our audio tracks. His primary source for the music is from a subscription we have with FirstCom.

[@taoistflyer]

Very well dun, you did a great job explaining difficult concepts. I do believe that some day Modified Newtonian Dynamics will do away with the concept of dark matter. Something about the idea of dark matter and energy has always felt wrong to me, but I'm better at flying then I am at math and physics so i can't really say for sure why. I love the visible event horizon explanation. I will be showing this video to a bunch of my friends, thanks for posting it. Keep up the good work.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

It is true that nothing we see (in space or otherwise) is still where it was when the light we see left the object in question. Because of the vast distances in space and the corresponding time-of-travel for the light, and because of the expansion of space, many distant objects that we "see" in space are physically beyond our horizon when we see them.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The expansion of space is described by Hubble's Law. The constant in that equation specifies the current rate of expansion and it is about 70 kilometers per second per MegaParsec. The farther away an object is, the more the intervening space is expanding. The shell of space about 16-18 billion light years away from us is moving away at about the speed of light. Farther objects are moving away faster and closer objects are receding slower than that.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The Planck time is the amount of time it would take light to travel one Planck length. In terms of physical constants, it is SQRT(h * G / c*c*c*c*c) where h is Planck's constant; G is the gravitational constant; and c is the speed of light. No shorter amount of time has a physical meaning.

[@AVLACDN]

I find it extremely interesting that space itself can move/grow faster than the speed of light.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

That concept is is based on the idea that our universe is but one bubble in an infinity of universe-bubbles. In that picture, the "quantum foam" exists outside of our bubble.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@ewack77 The limits imposed by the speed of light only apply once you have established a reference frame. In the Universe video, there is no reference frame that you can choose where the speed of light limitation has been violated.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

A field associates a value with every point in space. If the thing being measured can be defined by a simple number -- like temperature -- then the field is called a scalar field. (Simple numbers are called scalars.) If the thing being measured has both value and direction -- a vector -- then the field is a vector field. Force fields are vector fields, for example.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@Summeryear2008 If the walker had started 100 meters away, he would never get any closer since his rate toward the goal is exactly offset by the expansion rate of the track. But since he started only 99 meters away, the track's expansion rate is slightly less than his walking rate; so he makes a tiny bit of progress at first. This in turn makes the track expansion even less in comparison to his walking rate. So he will eventually get there, and we calculate that it takes 460 seconds.

[@sarkerm2]

this is so fascinating and hard to comprehend at the same time, have to watch couple more times haha

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@T0B0KKE It is true that basing the age of the Universe solely on estimates of expansion rates and current distances can introduce errors. But that is just one way to estimate the age of the Universe.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Objects that are close enough and massive enough to be gravitationally bound together, can overcome the small amount of expansion in the intervening space. The further away that objects are, the less able they are to make this compensation. Distant objects fail to do so both because their gravitational force is weaker and because there is more expansion in the intervening space.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

This is the concept of the "Multiverse" which says there are an infinite number of "universes" -- one of which is our own. Each is a bubble of space-time and each started the same way with a quantum fluctuation that grew into that full-blown bubble.

[@ScriabinFanatic]

I think that we would still see it, because at these distances we are seeing way into the past of what we see. Even when something goes faster than light the photons emit and then travel in the direction to us and will still reach our planet regardless what has happened after the photons were emitted. What we will see is just light that is pretty old.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@Flagamon The Uncertainty Principle allowed the creation of a tiny "seed" of "stuff" out of nothing. Then the expansion of space-time created the rest by absorbing the negative gravitational energy so that matter could be created out of the positive-energy counterbalance. The net energy in the universe is still equal that is the tiny "seed".

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The original form of inflation put forward by Linde and Guth in the early eighties had several problems. Some of which were pointed out by Hawking. In the almost 30 years since then, inflation has grown enormously (sic) and has several slightly different forms with names like eternal inflation, slow-roll inflation, and chaotic inflation. Linde and Hawking have both contributed significantly to the modern forms.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@magichristo The truth is we don't know what caused the big bang. More than one theory can account pretty well for the observed aftermath. We present one of the best in our "Universe" video.

[@tvmifear]

It's a very good video, like all the others that cassiopeiaproject has. One question, perhaps stupid, but I'd like to have an answer, please: Could be the redshift we can detect in the spectrum of galaxies, a result of the change in the energy (frequency) of the light emited from distant sources, owing to the time it has been traveling in space since it was emited (a cooling), instead of a consequence of the speed the source is moving away from us?. Thanks for your fantastic channel.

[@Zigiwy]

Thank you for a very interesting and well made video! I appreciate the fact that you also hang around to answer questions in the comments section. * * * * *

[@AlanKey86]

Hi - great vid. Was wondering though - if the Universe was born out of a quantum fluctuation, could an infinite number of other Universe also have been created? If so, would our own Universe not collide with other Universes, assuming the Universes are not created an infinite distance apart? Hope that made sense!

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@GateMessenger Those observations do not contradict the ideas depicted in this video -- watch it again!

[@daveknow]

Great video. Question: I believe it was Dr. Dawkins who wrote that there are an estimated 100 billion earth-like (or Goldilocks) planets. I gather from your video that our observable universe is a small fraction of the actual. Would you know whether this estimate of planets which could support life similar to that on Earth is inside the particle horizon or would include the entire universe? It is interesting to reflect that our type of life may exist in other universes.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@magichristo Most modern ideas regarding the beginning of the Universe consider that our universe may not be all that there is. Instead, it may be just one of a large, possibly infinite, number of universes. Taken together, they are sometimes referred to as the multiverse. So time and space for our own universe began with the big bang, but our big bang was not the beginning of everything that might be.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@magichristo As we stated at the beginning of this video, we assume SOMETHING existed before our own Universe came into existence.

[@mafarmerga]

Brian, Everytime I watch one of your videos I get smarter. Thanks!

[@thatguy431]

@cassiopeiaproject why/how does this expansion rate fluctuate. it seems like a huge problem.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Actually Einstein's theories leave room for faster than light particles called tachyons. But more modern theories also admit of possible tachyons, and none of these theories fails to preserve fundamental causality. In spite of the fact that Quantum theory says that they are too unstable to exist, experimental searches have been tried, but no evidence has been found for their existence.

[@sam321b]

@T0B0KKE it is like an expanding balloon where the galaxies are dots on the surface, however the universe is in 4 dimensions or more therefore this 2D anology doesn't give the whole picture.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@T0B0KKE Since all of space is expanding, there is no center of expansion. On the other hand, since the expansion is cumulative with distance from a given point, every point, including our own earth, can be considered the center if that's where you are.

[@Hugh.Manatee]

Wow, that puts things into perspective. I'm probably going to have to watch it again to completely wrap my head around it. This all means though that eventually a future intelligent race to reside in our galaxy will only see our local group of galaxies and unlimited darkness beyond right? Would they ever figure out that they're not living in a steady state universe?

[@cassiopeiaproject]

There isn't much we can test and prove about how the universe began. But WMAP findings have eliminated some of the various inflation models, but left standing the chaotic and eternal inflation models of Linde and Guth. The concepts presented here concerning pre-inflation, are primarily those put forward by Andrei Linde. A search on his name should produce more information.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@T0B0KKE When refined estimates of that nature are combined with other methods -- like the age of the oldest star clusters and the age of the oldest white dwarf stars and age of radioactive elements in the gas clouds of galaxies and other methods based on the CMBR -- then we think the age estimates are pretty accurate.

[@zarrurer12]

@puncheex im confused.... what does 10^-35 second mean anyways?

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

i saw a documentary where people where talking about galaxies receeding and saying that galaxies we see today might not be seen in the future ...

[@Icix1]

It's crazy that there are events we will never see, but we know happened.

[@ThrowFence]

@bloodup you also realize that CERN wasn't built for one sole purpose? as TOBOKKE explained (fusion), but also with it they can for example detect if there are parallel dimensions, or universes if you will, effectively proving string theory, or the newer M-theory

[@seacaptain72]

Great video man. I've always believed that the speed of light was inconsistent being called the speed limit of the Universe. It would make sense that since the Universe is expanding, and light expands with it, that light would be able to travel faster than it's Einsteinein constant. Surely dark matter and dark energy have contributed to this.

[@moezbenhamouda4725]

Are higgs boson what makes rest mass objects unable to reach the speed of light? If yes, Are higgs boson the particles that defines spacetime?

[@thetaken09]

@cassiopeiaproject So all of space is expanding at the same rate? I'm struggling to get my head around the whole 'no center of expansion' thing, obviously I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a center and certainly not that if there was it would be where we are, but naturally when you imagine something expanding you visualise a central fixed point with the furthest parts moving away from each other the quickest...

[@Summeryear2008]

Wait a minute! I'm confused at that part in the middle of the video. If you were standing on a 100 meter track and someone 99 meters away from you were to walk toward you, and he walks 1 meter per second and the track grows 1 meter per 100 meters every second, how does it take him 460 seconds or 7 minutes and 40 seconds for him to reach you? That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't the answer be ↨?

[@ThisCanBePronounced]

Someone, 2 clarifications plz: 1: @ 8:12 he says first stars were giants that were everywhere, so those just inside our horizon are just visible today. Thus, they were intially 42mil ly away & are now 36bil, being "just inside" 46bil, corrrect? But @ 9:00, "light from earliest stars" WAS emitted from 1.5bil, now 36bil. Eh? Are we talking about the same stars? 2: 9:28, light from galaxies from 5-6bil ly...."were most distant at the time." So at what point in time is that 5-6bil ly from? ty.

[@Zeletta]

I think I understand. Does this mean that we will never reach the galaxies that we have seen through telescopes? Or are those and most nearby galaxies aswell as our galaxy bound by gravity? Is this a theory or fact? seems really interesting...

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Since none of the motion described is in ANY observer's inertial frame, none of the tenet's of special relativity are violated. No observer ever overtakes a light beam and all observers measure light locally to be traveling at c. And causality is preserved.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@ewack77 From an observer on earth or anywhere else, any MEASUREMENT of the speed of light in a vacuum will result in about 186,000 mps. Relativity is correct if a reference frame can be defined that two observers agree upon. And matter separating faster than the speed of light because the space between two objects is expanding is NOT the same thing as matter traveling THROUGH space at the speed of separation. ANY actual MEASUREMENT of the speed of light will yield c.

[@thetaken09]

This has just clarified so much to me

[@cassiopeiaproject]

But there is no possible way to measure the speed of light if the space between two observers is expanding faster than light can travel across that space.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Most versions of new inflation require an infinite number of "bubble universes". But each would be independent in most theories. Brane theory allows them to interact gravitationally.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

A fun observation and a fun question. Such a future race will be able to see the microwave background (it will be even more redshifted than today.) That might be enough for them to make some deductions about what is beyond their event horizon.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

but if they are moving faster than light because the universe is expanding ..wouldnt that break causality? cus i thought anything that moves faster than light would basicly go back in time ...or something like that.

[@ScriabinFanatic]

I've thought of universe like Earth, on the surface a person that does not know the earth is a bounded sphere might think the surface is infinite, but when you can see the earth from afar you can see it is a bounded sphere, the same may be for the Universe but in a 4th dimensional object, but it falls into these multiverse theories and other things relating to parallel and mutliple universes.

[@Flagamon]

(min.1.46) How does the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg explain the creation of "this much stuff" out of nothing?

[@fazekaslaszlo]

"due to the faster than light expansion of space..." ehem, I guess this is hard core Star Wars science...:)

[@Neeraj12345678987654]

Interesting but if the galaxies are moving away from us at the speed of light. The light travels at the speed of light then, relative to us, shouldn't light appear stationary. But special relativity says the light always travels at the sped of light irrespective of the observers motion. Thanks

[@cassiopeiaproject]

@derickhaywood You can think of all the rest as a separation between positive energy which resulted in all the matter that you mention and the negative gravitational energy that resulted from the expansion. If we could add these two back together we would end up with zero.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

The rate of expansion has not been constant over the history of the Universe. It was initially enormous (inflation). Then the rate of expansion continually slowed for billions of years. Now it appears the rate of expansion is increasing.

[@afroman1419]

@taicleis I know what you mean. When two phrases have the same noun in them but different adjectives, the adjective in the second phrase should be emphasized to show that it is different from the first one.

[@HristoGoleminov]

@cassiopeiaproject How can something exist before the universe was created if there was no space where it would exist and no time when it would exist?

[@haggidubious]

Great stuff, well-presented!

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Throughout the last 13.7 billion years, the rate of expansion (Hubble) has not been a constant. During the inflationary phase, the rate of expansion was enormous. Then for billions of years the rate of expansion was slowing. Finally for the last several billion years, it appears the rate is increasing again.

[@Summeryear2008]

How do you calculate that it takes 420 seconds? You still haven't explained. Can you show me how you got or calculated out that answer?

[@ObjectsInMotion]

This is a more accurate view of the universe than anything Nassim Haramein or you could have ever come up with.

[@derman077]

@InitialDAmine You misspelled "a lot"

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Correct. An easier way to write that is 10^-43 secs.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Recent findings from WMAP make the big rip scenario very unlikely.

[@Arthur61987]

If a galaxy shines in the universe and there's no one around to see it, does it emit light?

[@CreativeVisionary92]

I think that this vacuum fluctuation theory model could be better explained by primordial vacuum decay, quantum tunneling, and this rolling ball model.

[@ThinAndWoeful]

@Corruptedinfernal I just saw this, and, at first, I thought the same thing you did; when I re-watched, I realized that's not what was said. To recap, you have a guy walking toward (lets say the origin) at 1m/s; meanwhile, the track is expanding away from the origin at 1m FOR EVERY 100m EVERY second. This means that the track is not moving in the opposite direction at 1m/s, but that every bit of track added every second contributes to the amount of track moving away... Like compound interest.

[@etheriondesigns]

@ewack77 The cosmological theory which the big bang is based on is what I'm talking about. Hubble's assumption that spacial curvature accounts for galaxy redshift has been blown out of the water due to measurements provided by the WMAP. Google "WMAP the shape of the universe" and you will see what I'm talking about.

[@elmotouchesme97]

yes, we know that the universe is expanding faster than c, and it's accelerating. This does not violate the thought that nothing travels faster than light as what is expanding is literally nothing.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Right now there is no evidence for a faster than light particle, and any theories postulating such particles usually predict that there would be no interaction between them and slower than light particles.

[@Jipzorowns]

yes they would. The notion of 'now' is bounded to your position in spacetime :)

[@thatguy431]

@robertozube so much of our current model is fudged in to make the cosmic microwave background radiation seem to be as important as people want it to be. especially inflation. why the hell does space just randomly expand super fast for a time then slow down again.

[@Jipzorowns]

yes, it did expand faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is only a limit within spacetime. The light of stars that are futher away than 13.7 billion lightyears have not reached us yet, thus we cannot see them. The universe might be much much much bigger than we think. The 'ring' within the 13.7 lightyears range is what we call 'the observeable universe'

[@Juxtaroberto]

@Arthur61987 Of course it emits photons. Just because there aren't any retinas to transduce the light signals into electrical signals doesn't mean it automatically stops existing. Humanity's hubris seems to have no bounds, as we seem to believe reality hinges on our perception of it.

[@troller123able]

Scientists, physicists, meteorologists, etc, can only get to a limit of discovering/finding all these fascinating things because it's too much!!.

[@01rai01]

This years noble prize winners (physics) found out that the universe was expanding at a accelerate rate, so i guess its only a matter if "time"

[@sobpatrick]

10 to the -35 power in seconds is actually an extremelly long period in comparison to 10 to the - 35000000000. You could continue to add zero's for the rest of your life - and never know (or even be closer)to the truth. It's fun to think of things in small and large sizes, but in infinity it doesn't really matter

[@jimkeller3868]

So let me get this straight. The initial mass that created the universe was 1/100,000 of a gram. So how does that translate into making the universe?

[@duckcluck123]

wow dude. i never thought of that nice thinking

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

i never said this video said it ..we can see right as far as the particle horizon cus the light from that point is just now reaching us ...

[@ronaldarias2925]

great video I like it

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

we cant see past 45 billion light years cus everything past hat point is receeding faster than light relative to us ...so the light emitted by thoose object is travelling away from us ....

[@enniopat]

has anyone theorised how matter comes to be. is matter an assembly of particles called atoms... or maybe something else that behaves like particles/matter and yet is not... The problem is how did it all start? if matter spontaneously comes to be then is the mass in the universe increasing????

[@airwolfke]

Nice, keep up the good work :-)

[@wildzeromusic]

Best video on the internet

[@MagnumJohnson]

Is the Universe an Never-Ending place? There's no invisible wall, or a black hole, blocking the end of the universe?

[@HristoGoleminov]

And, I don't understand the two different theories of the Big Bang. i've been taught in school that the Big bang of theory is concerning two particles that hit eachother and therefore create the universe, but the Big Bang theory I've seen in videos is concerning the explosion of a single bit of mass.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Probably not. There was a legitimate study of the fine structure constant (alpha) as determined by examining the absorption of light from distant quasars over billions of years by intervening gas clouds. They claimed that alpha (and probably the speed of light) had increased by a few parts in a hundred thousand over 2 billion years. Since then several other studies have found no change in alpha (and the speed of light ) over time.

[@RoadkillIndustries]

i watched one video by Vsauce on Nothing (thats an actual video by him) and now i cant stop watching vids on astronomy

[@HristoGoleminov]

There are two things that don't make sense: How, in the beginning of the video, with that single bit of mass, can a universe be created? I mean, That single bit of mass must've been created WHEN the universe was created, since it cannot have existed before the universe was created, since time was created when space was.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

we are recieving the light from them ..but by the time we start recieving it they are already farther away ...get what i mean?

[@Rico8458]

or the speed of Time and Gravity?

[@stronklytyped]

First, all those galaxies account for 1% of the universe. i.e: if we remove all the matter the universe will essentially be the same. The concept that YOU are missing on is called a quantum fluctuation. If you understood that, you'd see that in a flat universe we can have infinite amounts of matter as long as the total energy is zero.