Was the Universe EVER this Small?

[@beecat4183]

I love when Em is on the show! She's a great avatar for the audience, because she asks exactly the right questions.

[@frissonsteemit2318]

she asked a lot of the same questions I have too!

[@HivonoviH_Jiji]

so true, love her, heuuuu i mean i like her. Sorry Nick lol

[@mcnugget9999]

Completely agree. You guys are awesome!

[@MatthewMcRowan]

You're so smart you think like a woman

[@JuggleGod]

And they're so wonderful together! There's this great mutual respect and love of Science and each other

[@Jmr2urbo]

Id watch a 2 hour Science asylum video

[@-_Nuke_-]

Absolutely, make it happen Nick! :D

[@kingozala]

Same

[@louisrobitaille5810]

I have a feeling it can be found on the Patreon 🤔.

[@-_Nuke_-]

@@louisrobitaille5810 oh! nice

[@bhanuchhabra7634]

Yes!

[@xyzabc4574]

Mrs. Asylum finally understands "It's OK to be a little crazy." at a deep, fundamental level. And her Animal shirt rocked hard.

[@DefektoPrime]

I really enjoy smart people talking nerdy to each other

[@94leroyal]

If Em legitimately didn't know much of this beforehand, she is a master in logic and reasoning. Every inference was spot-on.

[@glenncaughey5044]

@94leroyal And well scripted. 😁

[@yayisnotasinger]

We lost a lot of the conversation. She probably looks smart for the sake of time

[@Lucky10279]

It probably helps that she is a scientist, even if not a physicist, so she likely has a lot of experience with scientific reasoning.

[@slimjimnyc270]

They mentioned at the end that the unedited video was two hours long.

[@renatobergallo6321]

These videos with you two are insanely pleasent to watch. Thank you!

[@johnjeffreys6440]

It's hard to believe nobody ever said that before 1949 because that's what they believed in as the beginning of the universe.

[@qazsedcft2162]

I recently watched a Minute Physics video where he gives a good explanation of the "what is space expanding into" question. If it's infinite then it's like the number line - you can scale any part of it as much as you want and it's still infinite. In other words, it expands into itself.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

And there was no matter before that, only energy, from what I have heard.

[@ryanpmcguire]

Best way to put it is to compare it to the question "where is the center of an infinite line" or "where is the beginning if a circle". Both are examples where the answer is simply "no". If the question is incoherent, the answer will also be incoherent. Some questions are inherently incoherent so as to be unanswerable. So, the answer to the question "what is the universe expanding into expanding into?" is "no".

[@rajatsharma6256]

Pls share the link to that video.

[@qazsedcft2162]

@@rajatsharma6256 m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2SwiIWsgdOXsNU

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

What most forget is that when we talk about the big bang and the universe that's expanding from a tiny point, is still the portion of the universe that we consider observable at this moment. So around that blob that becomes our observable universe , is infinitely more universe which just expanded way faster than our portion At the moment of the big bang, space just sprang into existence everywhere, here, there, a gazillion billion light-years away. all at once. And it all started expanding as soon as it existed. So to recap, the descriptions of the big bang are ONLY OF OUR OBSERVABLE PORTION OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE! And I assumed the Universe to be infinite in size. But it would also work for a finite universe. At around 11:00 He says we could find the centre of a finite univere, but this is not necessarily true. If the Universe is shaped as a 4-dimensional version of a donut, it would be infinite still in distances that can be measured but the volume would be finite.

[@Culando]

Whenever I think about the size of the universe, I always end up thinking of this quote from Hitchhiker's. “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” And it's crazy and awesome that we can even make an educated guess at the lower limit of its size.

[@John-g6x1h]

LMAO First thing that came to my mind too.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Space is so vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big, that the number we express the lower size limit with is mind-bogglingly BIG. I mean, 42 to the power of 42 might seem big, but that's peanuts to space.

[@steverempel8584]

When I think about the size of space, I think in relative terms, so I can understand it. In general, I picture myself as a Galaxy, in which case, the nearest real Galaxy, Andromeda, is about a block or two down the road. The observable universe is about the size of California, but who knows the size of the whole thing, it could be infinity large. Lastly, the stars that make up the Galaxy, like our sun, are the size of atoms. But while the human body has hundreds of Trillions of atoms, the Galaxy has hundreds of Billions of Stars. So you'd be less dense than air, assuming stars are Atoms.

[@Secret_Moon]

"...that's just peanuts to space." That's like the biggest understatement in the history of the universe.

[@alexpotts6520]

The last time I was this early, the universe was still in its inflationary epoch

[@ScienceAsylum]

😆 It's been a long time.

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

@@ScienceAsylumsince I rock and rolled.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

when I last saw this comment, universe expansion was still slowing down

[@govcorpwatch]

@@ScienceAsylum Linear time is a human construct necessary for the brain/ego to "get it." Time is a real thing, it does exist. BUT..... There is literally and exactly only ONE Moment of it. there is only NOW. everything is NOW, it just looks different because it is a different angle/frequency of the great universal hologram. Clif high says the "frequency of the universe is 22 trillion hz as a pulse, on and off. 'existence' reality-as-we-know-it then nothing/everything/all/none" Some people call the hologram "God" but it is you and you are it. like the matrix. and we are in it. This is base reality because to even be talking there has to be some existence in that/this base reality! PBS Space time has some very important videos about gravity being entropy at the 2d surface at the outer boundary of "this universe" in the last few episodes. a-mazing! So, here is the deal. The present moment is the gift. It's presence. It's teh Present. You can't "remember" without "that moment" being present here and now in "this moment". Our mind is scientifically proven to be non-local in time and non-local in space. we know this, look it up. I do like David Wilcock's first book _Source field Investigations_ for that reason, and that 1/5 of his 3" book is just references. Our "brain" is quantumly entangled. We know cellular structures in cells, called "Microtubules", open and close; creating a chamber of "quantum entanglement" when closed and then opening to gather/release information, then entangle, then open. The rate is about 40 hz, if i recall. Our brains entangle with "all that is" ~40 times a second. All cells, neurons too. Re-membering (like reattaching your thumb), remembering is viewing that moment of Now from a different perspective in the NOW. the fractal of the mind and universe is that amazing. Meditating does bring the mind into the present moment, ever more. And in doing so, we see further into the past (remember more), can see more and better outcomes and possibilities, and experience the present moment with more depth and clarity, simplicity and multi-faceted-ness. There is so much paradox to it, but that is also precisely what you are about. You crazies. 🤪 Interesting to note that the rational numbers are markers, labels, indicators of locations in the number line, but have no actual "space" within the number line. only irrational numbers contain "space" within the number line, and there are infinitely more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 than infinity itself. You know, Cardinality. Applied to TIME itself, there is an infinite amount of time we must wade through just to drink your covfefe [🤣]. The idea extends into space as well, they are one in the same. no? space-time? time-space? anyway. All space is HERE. All time is NOW. The stars and blackholes that you think are so far away? they are merely projections on the inside of your skull. They aren't that far away. The discussion of "space" being "One" is that it is one integrated field of itself. yes? all of it is all entirely entangled and in decoherence at the same time, always, now, right here. with you. It's in the room with you. Yes, it's behind you RIGHT NOW. [OMG] but don't bother looking. It'll only be MORE behind you when you look behind you. How do you know what is actually behind the wall? I personally like the "prime Radiant" concept, where everything is the same undifferentiated particle. It'd be like everything we see is more like the one giant particle that is carved out of the same piece of clay. Others have called it: The One Proton Model, The One Electron model, or, as Nassim puts it, the Schwarzschild Proton Model. I'll let Nassim describe his model.... WOW. I am a big fan of Nassim Haramein, what it could mean, and it's importance.... esp If true. stunning. It will need your specific level of expertise just to understand this video, my Science Asylum Friend. The audience of this video is the kind of scientist you are. "The [Quantum] Origin of Mass and Nature of Gravity Explained" Video ID: BwUOpBI0H0s It would be AMAZING if you did a critique video of this. What i like about Nassim's work regarding protons being "mini-stable blackholes" is that the proton itself becomes the 2D surface upon which the boundary is projecting our 4D reality. 🧐 That is to say, all protons may be the same proton because, as blackholes, they exist outside of time/space as we know it and have studied it. What is to say "quarks" aren't some measurable energy pattern within blackholes? and how might that apply/impact Hawking Radiation? both at the stellar level and as a proton? At the proton level, to maintain stability, anything it receives must be emited quickly. aka, another particle "bounces" off a proton after colliding.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

It's hard to believe nobody ever said that before 1949 because that's what they believed in as the beginning of the universe.

[@invader_jim2837]

Great stuff. Your graph near the end saying size of "observable" universe helps a lot with my grievance with seeing prominent science communicators not elaborating on that over the years. There was nothing more frustrating than hearing them say "the entire universe was X size at X time" only to follow it up with a contradicting "there is no such thing as a centre". That alone puts this vid up there with your Hawking Radiation one. Cheers.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you appreicate the nuance.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

Yes, there are 2 universes that we know of, the observable, and the universe beyond that, but very few specify that.

[@oliviervancantfort5327]

I still think the distinction was not made enough in this video. When it is said "the universe was once smaller than the dit at the end of this sentence", it should have been pointed out that it was the observable universe. I think a better explanation for non specialist would be to state that the beginning of the universe is not a size singularity but a density singularity. The grid is just packed denser and denser. If the grid (entire universe) is infinite, then it is still infinite when packed denser and denser and the Big Bang happened everywhere in an infinite space, it is just the density that was infinite (or close to)

[@SSMLivingPictures]

Em is the perfect amount of intellegence that she understands each concept but still has questions. Em, youre awesome! You light up every video youre in!❤🎉

[@badmeatbrowniesthoughts1327]

Absolutely! my absolute favorite science couple. I personally love the longer uploads.

[@davidbrinnen]

Well done, editing the video down from two hours of conversation to under a quarter of an hour.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! This thing was a beast. Hardest edit I've ever done.

[@jeffreyb.2817]

I'd watch the two hour video

[@LittleRockSix]

@@jeffreyb.2817 seconed.

[@scudlee]

Release the Snyder Cut! Er... The Lucid-er Cut?

[@davidbrinnen]

@@scudlee If it was the Snyder Cut, wouldn't that necessarily involve a lot of slow motion? So longer than two hours... plus some gratuitous grain handling shots with lens flare.

[@soumajitsen1395]

Nick, I think all of your subscribers would LOVE a 2 hour Science Asylum video. Like, you can just post the link in a community post and make it an unlisted video if you want, but we really wanna see it all.

[@oderalon]

7:15 "Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!" :)

[@ProgressiveMastermind]

You're such a delightful science couple! 😎🥰🙏🇩🇪

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you! 🤓

[@yurkshirelad]

I love Em's t-shirt.

[@sirjaroid4725]

2:50 The Big Bang was uniform for a long time on human scales… but it was really only uniform during the period of intense heat that a c4 explosion would be uniform for, but because it is a bigger mass compared to explosion size, it stays hot and uniform for longer. It became turbulent when stars and galaxies formed.

[@NobodyImportantX]

This was a great episode. you two feed off each other's goofiness so well 🥰

[@JZsBFF]

10:14 Em/me thinking: "Between 20 and infinite? Yeah, what I was thinking. They haven't got the slightest idea what the number is."

[@MelloCello7]

I LOVE hearing Nicks laugh! Something unbelievably wholesome about it!

[@LiquidWater91]

Nice video, very informative. I do wish you talked a bit more about the graph at the end, kinda felt like you were about to get into it, then the video ended. So hoping to see a future deeper dive video from you!

[@ScienceAsylum]

You mean the graph at 7:40? Or the timeline at 12:58?

[@LiquidWater91]

The one at 12:58

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@LiquidWater91 I'm sure I'll go deeper into that in a more technical video. No worries. My patrons/members have been asking for that for a while.

[@LiquidWater91]

Great to hear! Thanks for everything you make for us!

[@carriefu458]

I love this science couple!!! So cool to be geeking it out together!!!

[@benegesserit9838]

love this format!

[@ricklime7403]

Priceless chemistry, brilliant physics, and a smattering of biology too!

[@als6226]

Great show you two. Real pleasure to watch

[@eozineable]

bro watched on x16 speed

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@eozineable 😂

[@als6226]

@@eozineable watching at regular pace is so yesterday..😏

[@worstuserever]

​@@eozineable"Fast Fast!"

[@TorgnyKasse]

@@worstuserever 😆

[@cowboyyeehaw9037]

Months ago I knew very little about the sciences, but thanks to your channel, I can confidently explain quantum electrodynamics, chemistry, and so many other things. You’ve made my learning process SO MUCH EASIER! Thank you!

[@ScienceAsylum]

That's wonderful to hear! I'm glad my style works for you.

[@stefaniasmanio5857]

Wow! My favorite couple! ❤❤❤ thank you so much! Wonderful subject, as always so well explained!

[@1TakoyakiStore]

Emily: So are we talking about the show, the attack vegeta uses, or the physical theory? Nick: Yes

[@Dellvmnyam]

Oh, I read Hoyles's "Black Cloud". Thanks for the final clarification about protons.

[@Twigsman]

Anytime Em is on I feel like it's a good video to show people who don't quite understand the topic.

[@reinholdmathuni5134]

Why does no youtuber ever mention that if the (total) universe is infinite it must have been infinite from the beginning so that the imagination of a (small) point is very misleading. There never was a "point", the density of the universe was just infinite and size was infinitely big

[@tonywells6990]

Yes it could have been expanding forever (eternal inflation) before our big bang happened, possibly in an infinite multiverse.

[@narfwhals7843]

Lots of people mention this. But whenever people talk about "The universe was such and such (finite) size" they always mean the observable universe.

[@JdeBP]

​@@narfwhals7843Quite. PhysicsGirl definitely mentioned it a few years ago, just for starters.

[@reinholdmathuni5134]

@@narfwhals7843 lol must be a different KZbin than mine

[@axle.student]

Good comment. No one ever says that in an infinite universe the singularity was infinitely large, in which an infinitely large singularity makes absolutely no sense, unless we assert zero is an infinitely large number.

[@XtReMz98]

This format is the best since these are questions I would ask myself too.

[@ZackRToler]

2 hours down to 13 minutes, I can't help but be curious what all was left out. I'm sure there might be some off-topic stuff or giggle-fits.

[@ScienceAsylum]

_A LOT_ of math was left on the editing room floor. Might cut it into a Nebula exclusive if I ever have time.

[@Jose-yt3qz]

I remember that I had issues with physics and could not understand it, then I found your videos and suddenly I could understand stuff. Nick, you would be an excellent teacher and if you are, you are an example!

[@justmehere_]

I don't know how this never clicked for me until now, but despite the *entire* universe being whatever size during the big bang, our observable universe, or rather everything contained inside it, used to all exist in a teeny tiny space, right next to other heaps of matter and energy that are beyond our horizon. I mean that's just insane, everything all the galaxies and stars and planets and _us_ used to be a dense, hot dot, and it was like that EVERYWHERE, just WE were a dot of this soup.

[@volkhen0]

If it’s infinite today then creation of Universe in big bang already created it infinite even at the very beginning when it was super duper dense Universe.

[@ScienceAsylum]

*"...used to all exist in a teeny tiny space, right next to other heaps of matter and energy that are beyond our horizon."* Exactly!

[@randymack2222]

I was waiting for a "Who's on first" reference, but most people who are old enough to remember Abbott and Costello aren't the primary audience on KZbin!

[@IsaacPiera]

I think the bread loaf the ballon is not a good example, since they expand from one center point as she says. Instead imagine in 2D a line of marbles all next to each other. Now each each time step you add one marble between every two marbles, so marbles have to move apart to make room. Setting your point of view in a particular marble you see the neighbor marbles having to move one marble space, the marbles two positions away will need to move two marble spaces, and the further marbles will have to move more and more. But if you look it from another marble it also looks like every marble is moving away from you at a higher speed the further away from you. If you reverse time, each pair of marbles get close and fuse. You can see a representation as a tree where you climb up until you reach the trunk node. Since each marble leaf fused into a parent marble, each marble ends up being the initial one. So the big band is just the root node of all actual leaf nodes. The problem is that we tend to imagine this system as an external observer without movement with respect to the marbles, but since the marbles represent space-time itself, the only valid observation points are the marbles themselves. So no matter the reference point you pick, this same location back in time is the initial location. And all other locations move away from you at a speed proportional to how far the points are from you. In reality each marble could be a plank volume in 3D, generating a new plank volume in all directions for each unit of time.

[@papername1237]

This felt so short! I liked this so much.

[@formigarafa]

That change of scale of time on the end of the video, which took me a while to realize it is not just a zoom of the first moments of BigBang left me scratching my head again.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It was a change from linear time to logrithmic time, which exaggerates the tiny amounts of time at the beginning so they're visible.

[@ADudeNamedStacie]

Animaaaaal!

[@ImDemonAlchemist]

I love the Zelda 1 shirt. I feel like you've probably worn it in a video before, but either way, good choice.

[@davidedrich6985]

I know I’m learning when I see a vid like this and there’s nothing new to me! Still it’s wonderful reinforcement

[@Bluelightzero]

What if space is not getting bigger, but everything in space is just getting smaller?

[@govcorpwatch]

you'd have to go to the flip side of string theory for that. but yeah. It's been answered, actually.

[@JapuDCret]

just things getting smaller would leave the distances between objects (e.g. galaxies) growing at the same rate, but what we actually see is objects further away moving faster away from us, than nearby objects. At the cosmic event horizon, that speed crosses the speed of light and therefore we cannot communicate with anything beyond that (and the cosmic event horizon is shrinking on us, as space expands even more)

[@CliffSedge-nu5fv]

Eventually that would have a limit. Either asymptotically approaching zero size or disappearing entirely.

[@tezer2d]

3:58 The Dough expanding is a better analogy than the surface of the balloon, not only because of the number of dimensions (3 rather than 2) but also because of curvature. The balloon's surface is curved, the dough's volume isn't. And as far as we know our universe is probably not curved so it's more dough-like

[@martj1313]

This works so well, listening to you explain things to somebody else makes it easier for me to take in the knowledge.

[@JCtheMusicMan_]

Every time you drop a new video I am reminded of how much I love your enthusiasm and passion for exploring complex topics in an easy to understand way! ❤ I end up revisiting your other videos 😂

[@ntfsguy3601]

Love watching you both.

[@paulwarila1502]

"Do expound." That's just great!

[@s.rehman2.0]

Nick is a physicist and Emily is a biologist (Or I think so) but I love their chemistry. 😁😁

[@richardcalon3724]

Love the interaction betwen you two. The science content is fun too.

[@J1mmyMack]

I think the confusing thing is how physicists conflate the universe with the observable universe when they explain it. So we are led to think everything was in one point. But an infinite universe could have started as a large dense area.

[@universemaps]

Thanks! Just in time when I'm doing research on the subject 👌💫

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad it was helpful! 🤓

[@cyclonasaurusrex1525]

When you started these, I was prepared to be cringed out. Instead, I love them and look forward to them.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you like them. I honestly didn't expect them to be so popular.

[@Doomclown]

@@ScienceAsylum M is the perfect mix of smart (as a person) and ignorant (about physics) to be the perfect straight man. Plus I assume the personal chemistry helps.

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

Sometimes I like to look at it as not that space is expanding, but rather everything is shrinking, then the question of what space is expanding into doesn't matter.

[@adamphilip1623]

I'd love to see the full conversations from these episodes, you could even call it a podcast!

[@afonsodeportugal]

That Lemaitre guy sure looked like a maniac! 😅

[@stevenschilizzi4104]

A pretty crazy question springs to my mind. I understand that the BB couldn’t possibly have happened « somewhere » or « at a certain moment », given that it was not « in » space or « in » time. But could one say it was « in » another type of thing, a « probability space »? (with « space » having only an abstract mathematical sense)? If so, the « moment of creation » could be better interpreted as a potential becoming reality, or a probability becoming an actuality - or, why not, the collapse of a wave function, the wave function of the whole universe. If the beginning was quantum, then it must essentially have been a quantum wave function (psi), presumably of all possible quantum fields together. If so, the next question might be: who collapsed the wave function? But maybe no observer might be needed if the wave function could spontaneously collapse of itself if it was at all possible (probability greater than strictly zero). In short, the BB did not happen anywhere in space nor at any moment in time, but in some probability space where existence itself was not a reality but just a possibility. Is that a story that could make sense? Thanks for a very stimulating (and entertaining) video! 👍👏

[@sherazade82]

Wonderful explanation. Simple, yet elegant. I feel like the cosmic horizon part was a missed opportunity for a Gandalf "You shall not pass" meme. Hahaha

[@ScienceAsylum]

😆

[@silentsushix3]

2 HOUR VIDEOS!!!!!!! Then I can listen on my way home from work and have 30 mins left to watch at home!!!! It's perfect!

[@JoeLeonardo]

Release the 2 hour cut!

[@B_Van_Glorious]

Im so jealous you get to write off all those sweet tshirts. I saw the horn of the knight and startled my wife by shouting "Zelda!" You's two's are great

[@morryDad]

Thank you both for your dedication

[@KedarOthort]

Completely off topic but I love your shirt. OG Legend of Zelda is good shit

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

great talk !!!!

[@toddshreve]

Thank you. I really appreciate the delivery in this video and the others. It's just an absurdly effective style for me personally.

[@jaybooze5462]

This is interesting because I've always visualized the big bang and the expansion of the universe as a gigantic explosion that will cool and dissipate into nothing with the heat death.

[@RupanagudiRaviShankar]

@ 2 minutes: this is exactly what is stated in our Indian Historical book by the poet regarding the arrows shot once can taken back; but not the words which have entered the mind.

[@Crunch104]

But why would the universe have to start as a an extremely small object? Could it not as easily started at something that what was much bigger? Why do we extrapolate the current expansion to a small single point that becomes a singularity and not something larger? Great video!

[@Luke-to5sv]

This is an awesome video! You two have great chemistry (da dum tsch) together. I think a lot of couples would struggle making this type of video, but it seems so natural and friendly for you two.

[@Voielamankevat]

The size of the universe blew my mind 😮

[@efebrahim]

Love these videos. ❤

[@metasamsara]

There is no beginning and there is no end. Humans are running into the three body problem, where the observer bias makes us believe there is, but really it's our own perspective limiting how far we can interact with the universe. Everything is relative.

[@benoitpelletier5287]

Am I the only one that can only focus on this Zelda t-shirt? lol Great video, reallly love it!

[@MichaelNiles]

The center of the universe is in the past. The edge of the universe is now. Treating the temporal dimension as an extremely warped spatial dimension to the point it's unidirectional starts making these concepts more intuitive.

[@adenihil]

You guys are awesome! Keep it up! 👍🏼

[@Geraduss]

Universe is not infinite and it has no edge, the shape of the universe is a hypersphere, meaning if you managed to move faster then the speed of light in a straight line you would eventually come back to the point of origins.

[@VcSaJen]

"No edges" doesn't necessarily means "infinite". In the balloon analogy, there's no edge, but it's still finite.

[@alfacentauri3686]

I think of big bang as a phase shift in the fabric of reality. Like moving from solid material to some fluid stuff. At that phase shift spacetime emerged, but "before" that the universe was a very different reality.

[@evilotis01]

Em's shirt is the business

[@ExcretumTaurum]

Long ago, I watched a video called “The Everywhere Stretch” which did a great job of explaining the basic idea of what the Big Bang actually was.

[@primesonic4459]

I kind of wanna see the whole 2 hour discussion

[@BlackTomorrowMusic]

"Big Bang" works, but it's not the best name we could go with. I prefer the "Horrendous Space Kablooie!" or HSK for short.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yeah, I don't really have an alternative to put forward... not that it would matter if I did anyway.

[@PrometheusZandski]

Thanks fro another great video. I'm glad I watched until the very end. Thanks for addressing my point.

[@totherarf]

I find it fascinating that esoteric subjects like this could form part of a popular channel. It means there are more people like me around. I used to think I was weird and was surprised when working as a sparkie building a student hall of residence bumped into another spark like me. /we were tasked with second fixing the lights in one of the common rooms when we got to talking. Eventually the gaffer came to find us because we had missed brew time (1st fro everything) and he thought we might have had an accident. I will never forget the look on his face when he burst in on us the walls a mesh of different pencil diagrams of what happens when two spacecraft travel at near C but in parallel paths! No words were spoken but he did try to say something but no words came out. Eventually he shook his head and went off on his way! That was the moment I knew it was OK to be a little bit crazy! ;o) ...... That was back in the 80's.

[@TheMineA7]

I need that 2 hour video cause I don't fully understand this, at least the many edges part

[@mavadelo]

That is an awesome T-shirt on... uh OF my favorite Muppet I apologise and run for cover!!

[@triffid0hunter]

I like to describe the expansion as "new empty space being injected everywhere all at once", and to point out that if the universe is infinite now, it was _always_ infinite - it's just our _observable_ universe that was a tiny bean in the middle of an infinite hot mess at the beginning

[@LendriMujina]

I get it now. Even if there was the edges needed for there to be a center, that wouldn't even necessarily mean there was anything special about said center; any finite geometric shape just must have _a_ center. Heck, even with the balloon analogy, the center of the balloon is not the place where air's going in, it's just... there.

[@KurtVW]

Em's shirt is epic!

[@kenb2145]

Wife says, "We're being careful with our words." That was funny.

[@esra_erimez]

Alan Guth needs a noble prize

[@andrearaimondi882]

The way I like to explain the Big Bang movement is “imagine a bottle of water in a freezer: the ice expands in all directions. Same sort of thing happened with the universe, but it was hot rather than cold”

[@craigsurbrook5702]

The last big bang was not a singularity, but a non-zero size universe. Something like that HIggs Boson field tunneled to a lower energy state, and because the universe is non-local, the energy released in other fields occurred... the big bang, but everywhere at once.

[@bumpty9830]

To my taste, these "wife reacts" videos are your best.

[@johnholly7520]

You guys are really cool. I watch and read a lot of science content. I also try to explain this stuff to my wife too. But it is nice to see you guys just chatting about this stuff, because we do the same thing.

[@zamboni9038]

At 4:46, dude is rocking some serious Shiba Inu energy

[@meinkamph5327]

A dimension you cannot comprehend is, What's large is also microscope. The edge of the universe is also the beginning

[@schwenke069]

Y'all are good together.

[@br3nto]

4:51 if the universe started from a higher dimension, theoretically you wouldn’t need it to start from a very small very dense state.