What Made Our Universe? - with Andrew Pontzen

What's the universe made of? What are galaxy filaments? How did it all come to be?
Support us on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
This talk was hosted in conjunction with U3A.
Dr Andrew Pontzen is a cosmologist at University College London. His research, for which he was awarded the Royal Astronomical Society’s 2016 Fowler Award, focuses on the way that galaxies and other structures have formed in our Universe. He is also an experienced communicator of science on radio, TV and at events across the UK.
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: What Made Our Uni...
This talk and Q&A were filmed at the Ri on 11 March 2019.
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Dave Ostler, David Lindo, David Schick, Erik Shepherd, Greg Nagel, Ivan Korolev, Joe Godenzi, Julia Stone, Kellas Lowery, Lasse T. Stendan, Lester Su, Osian Gwyn Williams, Paul Brown, Radu Tizu, Rebecca Pan, Robert Hillier, Roger Baker, and Will Knott.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@karlamay_]

18:09 wow, that's scary and wonderful... It's hard to explain... Makes me feel small, insignificant, and fleeting. I have no words.

[@danopticon]

Excellent and informative lecture as always! Yours is among my favorite channels, I always check for new videos from you first whenever I log in. 🙂❤️💫

[@hvbris_]

Great introduction to cosmology, the computerized simulation at the end was amazing

[@thisisfyne]

This is an amazing introduction to cosmology! It covers a lot of stuff in a very coherent and interesting way :)

[@cairo2luxor]

Except that in no way does it actually attempt to answer the question in the talk's title which made it disappointing to me. It might have been better titled "Some details about our universe."

[@cairo2luxor]

@@ConceptCollection Right. By saying that he couldn't answer the question which means it was a poor choice for a title.

[@paulbennett4548]

Fascinating, an excellent explanation of how we got here. Keep up the good work .

[@roberthutchins4297]

No-one´s got the slightest idea of "how we got here". There are a few bizarre and improbable suggestions or theories. One of them must be true. (???) All or most of them start with the idea that the Universe sprang into existence suddenly and for no reason from the absolute and total nothing. No matter, no energy, no space and no time. Hang on - according to all these theories, there were some pre-existing laws or rules. Often quantum rules, which is another realm that no-one understands. How these rules came to exist in the absolute and total nothing is, of course, also unknown.

[@guyh3403]

Let the haters hate, I found this lecture very interesting and excellently performed. Thanks!

[@apuntes8883]

Whatever is inside the universe could eventually be explained by the laws of science and physics but the most extraordinary fact about the entire universe is the nature of the infinite void that actually contains within everything else.

[@LPNurja]

Amazing lecture, I just have one complaint: It is way too short! More please :)

[@noneofyourbizness]

a quite brilliant educator imo.

[@CV_CA]

31:14 Love that simulation, so cool.

[@bigjobs67]

Was it cable knit, polar neck jumpers? 🤔

[@ireneelisabethhitchcock1365]

Splendid.

[@SUFTUM_YNWA]

Awesome lecture. So glad I watched it. Amazing stats and concepts. 17:00 200-400 billion galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and planets in them. 18:00 The individual galaxies are not scattered randomly through space but there is organisation behind them and all this has been built! 'The heavens declare the glory of God' Psalm 19:1

[@davidwilkie9551]

The "big bang" picture plane of cross-sectioning of Superspin Modulation, the interpretation or conception of the real world around us through our personal observation in combination with experience of "Optics the Science", is a sufficient concept to have a general understanding of the Origins of the context of Actuality. (Big Bang Theory is a database title, a body of work for the interpretational analysis by Scientists) Light reflection from the surrounding environment, when interpreted by Lidar, gives an instant of awareness and re-cognition intuition of the Universal Hologram event Eternity-now, in terms of time duration timing of the Temporal Superposition-point Singularity. (And this is equivalent to the "navigational" context Aristotle attempted to explain in his temporal perspective) "All the rest is Commentary" about relative AM-FM Timing-spacing in Quantum resonances, and how the observable universe is this particular aspect of Infinity. (The concept of integrated resonances is the sciencing/mathematical equivalent replacement of "Turtles all the way down" mythology)

[@ThinkHuman]

This is really great, but the same basic cosmology 101. I was kinda hoping for more new hypothetical ideas of causes for the big bang or multiverse theories, but none of that here. But i guess he did made a clear disclaimer in the beginning.

[@TimBorny]

Nice talk, but really quite a misleading title. "What Made Our Universe?" would have been more apt if he had started off where he instead, ended (with what caused the temperature/density fluctuations in the CMBR).

[@stephensomersify]

very structured

[@the_primal_instinct]

Thumbnail says it all.

[@mattandmegandiercks8809]

Thank you for teaching me

[@Steven-ze2zk]

The universe was born infinitely large. Then it started growing.

[@dannydetonator]

Like my balls...

[@daved3494]

This lecture was brilliant and very engaging. The simulation at the end was excellent. As an aside, and an observation - I was stunned by the amount of grey hair in the audience - no young people allowed?

[@monstercolorfunco4391]

Yes, I am now convinced that cambridge Tai-Chi moves made our universe.

[@vickirosstudor490]

I'm always hopeful when I see new minds grapple with the age old question of the universe's origins. But we never really get a clear answer do we? It's all just theory and speculation. It's the one thing man can't figure out. That alone is fascinating.

[@jwaustinmunguy]

In profile I noticed that you could use Lasik, some hair coloring and a nose job to turn this guy into Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

[@bretthurst5716]

at 2:58, the image of the Hubble Space Telescope, how do you think they took that picture? was it a camera designed to take a picture of Hubble? a passing satellite? was it taken during Hubbles deployment?

[@colepenick5238]

Brett Hurst prolly the ISS lol

[@christophkocher2114]

never heard of selfie stick?

[@matoberry]

Brett Hurst there were 5 space shuttle missions to repair/service it, so the picture could have been made then? Dunno...

[@joemarz2264]

All doubts will be cleared. All questions will be answered. It's only a matter of time, and future human generations will know that which at present is unknowable for us.

[@bepowerification]

I am not sure about that. You will never be able to make dogs understand quantum mechanics. Human brains have their limits too.

[@douglashanson7489]

The 'detecting-a-planet' thing [by waiting until a tiny bit of light from the star is blocked for a moment] ..... the galaxy is SOOooo Vast, that it's completely plausible that things line up-- things that are nowhere near each other. What im saying is, is that they could be observing a star that's 100 billion miles away, thinking there's a planet orbiting it, when in reality, a relatively small asteroid could be just orbiting a planet that's only 15 billion miles away, whose orbit happens to line up perfectly with the far away system in question.

[@patrickderp1044]

keep observing and if you get the exact same signature wait exactly that long again and if you get the signature a THIRD time.....thats orbiting that star for sure bud

[@douglashanson7489]

@@patrickderp1044 If the ratio of the distance to the object's size and orbit diameter are perfect.....

[@5pecular]

@@douglashanson7489 Think

[@douglashanson7489]

Yes, Patrick, that's what I mean. Something closer that's appearing to orbit something farther away could be one tenth the size it's thought to be, with an orbit 10 times larger and faster than thought. The ratios of size and distance would have to be perfect. But when we're faced with astronomically high numbers of occurrences of these celestial objects, things like that are almost certainly going to come into our field of view at some point.

[@5pecular]

@@douglashanson7489 ??????? Think

[@Rafael-es3go]

Please, add subtitles so deaf people can see what hes talking about

[@ziploc2000]

You can turn on captions in English. Tap the 3 vertical dots in the top right corner of the video

[@DCMamvcivmEvony]

Press the screen, press the 3 dots that appear, press captions, press english autogenerared. Hope that helps.

[@Rafael-es3go]

@@DCMamvcivmEvony thats the problem, it is autogenerated so sometimes it might not do the best translate :(. Thanks anyway for your time answering

[@DCMamvcivmEvony]

No problem, it was pretty accurate although agreed there were a few mistakes.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

We're actually fundraising now to try to get all our films subtitled, as we are an independent charity and therefore somewhat cash strapped. We have some volunteers working on this video now, but it may take a little while!

[@soowong1960]

I would like to ask a question which has long since puzzled me. You said rightly that we cannot image our galaxy because our solar system is part of it. Understandably, we have no spacecraft to take an image from an external perspective. Why then is it possible to take an image (cosmic microwave) of the whole universe? I understand that it has taken 13.7 billion light years for the microwave to travel to us. Surely, 13.7 billion years ago, we we inside the primordial universe and not external to it. Is it due to inflation? Was matter (including the material in which our solar system was formed) thrown so far away that it has taken this long for the microwave to travel to us? An explanation would be greatly appreciated.

[@5pecular]

Watch PBS spacetime episodes on the CMB. That will inform you better.

[@ratnamani8228]

David Wong Because Space itself has Expanded faster than the Speed of Light 🤫

[@5pecular]

It is an image of the inside of the "universe"

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Some entity PLEASE do my gravity test as posted below: (Copy and paste from my files): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

(Here is a copy and paste for the Theory Of Everything idea that the above gravity test relates to): Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. * And a side note, 7/1/2019, (update to item #26 above in the TOE): The universe itself is probably not expanding, in other words 'space' is not expanding. The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, and other galaxies doing the same, continuously, over a prolonged period of time, would tend to push galaxies away from each other if nothing stopped them from doing so. It would give the illusion of 'space' expanding, but 'space' would not really be expanding. Then, as galaxies moved about, the net effect between the galaxies could change the interactions and possibly allow galaxies to collide at times. Also, the interactions between galaxies might cause some of the particles in some galaxies to start to rotate about that galactic's center, and along with gravity acting upon those particles from that galactic gravitational center, would cause the galaxy to become spiral shaped and shrink in size. Those on a planet in a solar system in a spiral shaped galaxy would perceive the rest of the universe expanding, also an illusion though. And combined with galaxies pushing away from each other, would give the illusion of space expanding faster and faster, but it would not really be. And also: 1. What exactly is 'space' that it can expand? 2. Where did the extra energy come from to cause space to expand? (Science claims energy cannot be created nor destroyed, one of the foundations of physics). 3. How exactly would 'light' ('em') look from far away galaxies if 'space' itself were expanding? 4. If gravity waves truly existed and were moving through the universe that had space itself expanding, how also would the 'em' look from far away galaxies?

[@jari2018]

The most intresseting how you can have the biggest possible planet without being a gasgiant taht you could walk on ,maybe not run , a shellworld with the size of Jupiter and with a athmosphere could be a nice world anyway on the outside.

[@92587wayne]

The Universe was born of Singularity; the paradox being that Singularity is not an individuality, the Singularity that the Universe was born of was a State of Singularity, the state of SIngularity being an Omniscient Singularity, Black Whole. In the Beginning, there was only Darkness upon the Deep.

[@electriccerix]

If the universe is infinite and unbounded how could it emerge from a finite point in space-time? Given that everything that now exists can be traced back to a single point of origin, namely, the Big Bang, why do we contend that it is infinite?

[@davesnothere2879]

I wonder what the odds are of a planet,s orbit around their sun so we see it pass In front of their star and not around it ? Or do all planets in our galaxy orbit around their star on the same plain?

[@5pecular]

No not all on the same plain definitelt there are odds. Unknowable but estimatable odds.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

The universe is full to the brim of intricate articulated complex structures and processes. The types of complexity you couldn't hope to be created by chance, even given the span of forever. The complexity of the world is a clue towards its origin, but nobody approaches this aspect of the world as being a clue. Because Big Bang cosmology is pre assumed, and isn't questioned any more, and because its an instantaneous creation theory there's no opportunity for a natural organizational principle to act and generate these complex systems. Therefore it predicts nothing of anything of the worlds character. All the clues are laid out before everybody, anybody to find. But nobody is capable of undertaking an unbiased investigation. Nobody is starting fresh and pursuing the question of complexity of the world as a clue, even though its the most striking aspect of this world.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

God thoery "design"? NO! Big Bang theory "chance" NO! Natural organisational principle? Why not? How many types of natural organisational principles are there? Not many!!!! the range to choose from is but one!!!!!!! can you guess which? is there a scenario in which it might be applied to the creation of the world and its very particular complexities, forms and processes? yes !!!! put it together people, please for the love of creation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@DarwinianUniversal]

direct evidence, my ass There's light out there in the universe! Like that proves the big bang! Universe is full of other light sources!

[@DarwinianUniversal]

cant watch any more of this. c ya

[@henrirauhala4335]

22:10 "...if you extrapolate that far enough back in time, then all the galaxies must surely have been on top of each other. That might seem like quite a leap..." Indeed it is. To make such an extrapolation, you need to assume that the Universe is homogeneous, due to the relative nature of spacetime. This is called the "cosmological principle". However, the Universe certainly doesn't seem homogeneous, as we saw in the picture of the "cosmic web" presented by Pontzen (19:25). Besides, even if all regions of our known Universe had been simultaneously in a state of a "black body", as the cosmic microwave background is thought to implicate, it would tell only about our known Universe. We cannot generalize anything about the observable Universe to the whole Universe, as if it should've suddenly come into existence 13.8 billion years ago, like Pontzen so confidently claims.

[@quill444]

It's crude to say that all galaxies were once on top of each other: let's just say that a long time ago, like Mommy and Daddy, they loved each other very, very much . . . - j q t -

[@veo_]

This lecture should be renamed. "What is our Universe made of?" Might make more sense. I tuned in for some serious cosmological-genesis discussion, and instead received (a quite well done, and entertaining) grade school astronomy lesson. This is no critique of Andew Pontzen, whom I enjoy quite a bit, rather with how his lecture is presented. While wonderful for the newly curious, this was a WASTE OF MY LIMITED KZbin TIME! Please appropriately title your lectures! Or come up with a target audience indicator? Entry, Expert, Theoretical?

[@jgalt308]

They have to do something with that wasted career choice........and who knows, maybe before we complete our self extinction, they'll figure out the "big bang" is wrong, and everything built on it, must also be wrong.

[@veo_]

@@roberts.3055 Thank you. RI lectures cover such a vast swath of topics and levels of expertise, it's really difficult to gauge before actually watching them in their entirety. Dr Pontzen's prior RI lecture on Dark Matter was delightfully informative, so I assumed this lecture would've built off that, but he barely even touches on the dark sector beyond what is already popularly known here. Some level of of difficulty indicator would make me a much happier viewer.

[@mangshu21]

u didnt see the audience?? almost all of em are very elderly people.

[@gazlink1]

@@mangshu21 Target audience for online consumption is something different to the audience that turned up on the day.

[@jerryli821]

@@gazlink1 - correct! it's one reason why YT is such a waste of time. Why scientists do it? It's a such a condescending attitude. We need to hear all this grade school level rehash, over and over? Don't they look at other videos??

[@junaidashraf5195]

I just surprised how air affective on flag while a person standing on moon?scene between (2:00-2:55)min

[@smilo_don]

No air, it's just moving from when they touched it. It stays in motion a lot longer without air resistance slowing it down.

[@LittrowTaurus]

3:53 the nearest planet is Venus, not Mars. Excellent lecture nonetheless

[@jgeorge2465]

I like the way he explains things.

[@starman8225]

Hello from USA I liked your presentation.

[@cetyl2626]

17:33 where on earth it all came from? Lol

[@ssv177]

They've made some kind of a computer generated "universe" and they think that it works that way in our universe - quite brave and yet stupid assumption, isn't it? %)

[@danilogallardo6806]

Can we know where the center of the universe is or where the big bang occurred ?

[@jeremyspayne]

danilo gallardo ... there is no “center” and it happened everywhere at the same time. Weird. I know.

[@danilogallardo6806]

Many thanks.

[@quill444]

Imagine a tiny balloon, a balloon so small that it takes up an infinitesimally small space . . . and now imagine expanding such a balloon and essentially all matter itself nearly 14 billion years later, into what would be the future, and into that time and place called "now" . . . and lo and behold: to your utter amazement and perhaps astonishment and surprise, you shall suddenly discover that actually . . . EVERYTHING was, and still is, located precisely at the center of the universe! There is no center, or rather: everywhere is at the center! - j q t -

[@apparaodasari2693]

At present , I am the only man on Earth , who know the basic matter about formation of the Universe and Evolution of Living Beings .

[@Kyliebobbyisla]

Who told you this? 😂

[@ParalysedGekko]

There are some significant errors in this presentation. 1. Since 2016 the number of estimated galaxies in our observable universe has tremendously increased: it's an estimated 2 trillion galaxies now (not 400 billions as stated in the presentation). 2. The microwave background radiation map shows blue dots being 2.721 Kelvin and red ones being 2.729, so there's no way the differences are tiny as something 'like 100,000 times'. That's a huge mistake in this presentation, too.

[@dafawkes7868]

I think he said 400 billion stars in our Galaxy. Can you put the time he said it? Because it's kind of an odd mistake, we've known for a while that the number of stars in our entire observable universe is enormous.

[@IKnowYouDidnt]

Hey I get it, believe me, I do..., as long as the universe is not infinite, cosmologists are in their safe place.

[@irrefudiate]

Being 14 billion years from the time where the universe began is a difficult concept. I have seen demonstrations of the concept, but I still don't get it. About four billion of the 14 billion were spent making our solar system, so, the universe has to be expanding much faster than the speed of light. Also, before matter, there was only energy, too hot to allow matter, and time/space. Presumably, according to Star Trek, there was also subspace and other possible universes forming. Speaking of which, our universe itself (whatever that might be) was being created along with energy-space-time, since prior to the "event" the only existence was nothing.

[@Laezar1]

Well the point of a singularity is that we can't really know what was "before" (with quotation marks because the concept of "before" might be meaningless there), so saying there was nothing or there was something before is simply a baseless assumption. Now when it comes to the expansion of the universe, it's not simply object moving away from each other, it's spacetime itself expanding so it's not "faster" than the speed of light considering speed is a property of something moving through spacetime, so attributing a speed to the expansion of the universe is a bit misleading as far as I know. I might be wrong though, but basically since it's space AND time that is expanding, and speed can only be calculated relative to a certain time (meter per second for exemple), well if the time itself is affected by the expansion, then you can probably have this illusion that thing had to move faster than the speed of light when it is in fact not the case. That's how I understand it at least.

[@irrefudiate]

@@Laezar1 - Yes. I suppose my dissatisfaction is with language being inadequate to the task. Physicists are at such a higher level of understanding that communication is nearly impossible with mere mortals. But, I'm glad they try to communicate.

[@isleofyew1]

What every human from the age of about ten should have learned in school!

[@5pecular]

Science didnt know this when i was ten

[@isleofyew1]

@@5pecular I was thinking of our 6 grandchildren who are now 10 - 16 years old. Jesus and Mohammad nonsense they have been introduced to in school but their scientific real knowledge is still very minimal and this I find irresponsible and upsetting.

[@5pecular]

@@isleofyew1 Education is now streamed into every house via the internet. School is outdated.

[@5pecular]

@@isleofyew1 Education is now streamed into every house via the internet. School is outdated.

[@isleofyew1]

@@5pecular I agree but there's no monitoring system so children use the media only for entertainment of indoctrination aka school.

[@selfawaredevices]

it is just sad that %0.1 of the population is trying to help other %99.9, as scientists we need more funding.

[@TeemarkConvair]

4;30 min,.,that's ernough for me. he did say no atmosphere on mars, and "might" have had liquid water? i believe the consensus is that it did indeed have liquid water, and it does have an atmosphere.

[@natfrey6503]

Title doesn't match the content. Should be titled "An overview of the cosmos, well done." Also, it's pretty well established that our own Milky Way galaxy is a barred galaxy, not like the example galaxy showed.

[@anthonymoon3747]

You mean a Milky Way bar?

[@donaldbest7621]

If questions are asked that do not encompass the whole of what is known, when looking for foundational causes of the universe, surely the answers will be incomplete. This gent has entirely left out magnetic field, and birkland current from his talk, even though they are documented on the scale of the sun. The sun has a magnetosphere. I can make some clear extrapolations of the universe based on just what I see here on earth, and the nature around me. The universe is fractal, it is the most beautiful Mandelbrot equation, elegant and sweeping in its expression. It is true across multiple scientific discipline, and easy to prove, I don’t think anyone would argue there is not fractal symmetry in geology, or physics, fluid dynamics etc....Planck did quite a bit to pull it all together. So, if there is a magnetic field around the earth, we should see contrary moving concentric circles? www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF Well the weather pattern over the earth show that. We should see it on Jupiter? Yes we see the same contrary flow pattern governed by birkland currents on Jupiter. The same with Saturn. This is all documented by satellite photography. Does the sun have contrary flow patterns? Yes it does. Can I go smaller? Indeed there is contrary flows in tornados and hurricanes, and they all flow in a vortex pattern. Can I go smaller still? Double helix patterns are known results of Dr Donald Scott’s paper on birkland currents. What is DNA? Nature has organized the whole of the universe on a simple premise, electricity orders itself through the creation of magnetic field, and this can be shown to occur when Zpinch squeezes the currents and force it back on itself, it’s similar to a Lagrange differential in the fluid aspect of it. Since I can show the evidence fractals are at work on every level with respect to electron flow, I would suggest traditional science would need to reform the questions asked of observable data, and include data that is being excluded. Ignorance of electrical circuitry in the sun can no longer be a reason, we know there are birkland currents forming from the sun at least, and fractal means there are larger structures of the same. Science is lost now. Plasma “is”, and is never spoken of by cosmologists.

[@jeffreyschweitzer8289]

Mars is not the closest planet to Earth. Venus approaches most closely and Mercury is closest on average due to the different rates at which planets travel in their orbits. Not hugely important but I would expect better attention to detail from someone giving a lecture at RI

[@chrisrecord5625]

Thank you, but I was hoping to keep those facts limited in case I was on University Challenge, etc.

[@Dragrath1]

Mercury the planet closest to every planet yeah he blundered there also picked a bad analog for the galaxy choice

[@MrStaygolddg1]

Reminds me of Sheldon!

[@cazcam2000]

I think this guy is an excellent presenter, shame about the content being more science fantasy than real science. It's definitely more metaphysics than real physics, but it will be a long time before we actually know something of real note!

[@jasonjackson3114]

Free-will may not have brought me here.

[@stevefromsaskatoon830]

Indeed

[@energyshandrew2854]

You would think the closer to the sun you get the hotter space would get, question does space get hotter the closer we get to the sun

[@rikimitchell916]

re23:40 'the temperature of the earlier universe'... do ideal gas laws apply in a vacuum? a perfect adiabatic insulator...fundamental particles can accumulate thermal 'gitter' but space (the vacuum) cannot ...SO does the hypothetical expansion of the universe actually effect it's temperature? (if in fact it has one)...if the part of the universe that is expanding cannot accumulation thermal energy (gitter) further to that temperature is a measure of difference even if measured in kelvin (absolute temperature) ..so what is the temperature of the universe measured with respect to ? as one cannot step out side the universe and simultaneously observe it...???

[@nightjarflying]

Why do you keep referring to gitter? The temperature of the universe at any point in space-time is the electromagnetic radiation energy density 'bathing' that location & the value is given by the Friedman equation - cosmologists say it was typically higher than 10^32 K very early on & around 10^9 K after around two minutes & it is now typically 2.7 K. Astronomers measure early temperatures by detecting [for example] gas clouds from the era of interest & measuring those. Measurements can't go earlier than around 380,000 years after the BB due to re-ionization so very early temps are assumed by calculation & that will have to do until we find a way of observing earlier than that time.

[@TheBiggreenpig]

28:25 So, they simulated the universe in a very big computer and got something that looks like our universe. Did they ever try to start with a different input? I suggest trying a nyan cat image as initial input (supposed early universe). I bet the computer will create a similar outcome after 10-15 billion simulation years.

[@BobBob-vc4bt]

Nice lesson in basic cosmology but what made the Universe?

[@mikeavery4098]

I can't wait. the robots we are building can exponentially advance itself and eventually interlink every Galaxy and creating a giant being that will take on a life-form shape doing so creating a new scale for us to rise upon making our creations the master of time and space hahaha just kidding but no for real LOL 😂

[@sudhirkumarjha5531]

super video

[@whirledpeas3477]

Somebody needs to sneak into NASA and launch the James Web Space Telescope 😀

[@gaetanovindigni8824]

Mr Pontzen avoids controversy when he chooses not to explain why Hubble is in low Earth orbit and how it has been surpassed (in some wavelength of light) by Earth based telescopes that cost far less and are easier to maintain.

[@deanschulze3129]

If you listen to the lecture at 16:00 he shows that Hubble has revealed things that no ground based telescope could have discovered.

[@gaetanovindigni8824]

@@deanschulze3129 Some things. Much of its capability has been surpassed by new earth based telescope technology.

[@TheOriginalDanEdwards]

The title of this video is misleading. The lecturer never really gets to the question that is in the title ("What Made Our Universe? "), and certainly doesn't answer it. He also does something that is common but which can be readily challenged: he says the universe started very small. While popularizers often say that, it is misleading. Instead, the way to describe the universe before the light that we can see (the CMB) is that the stuff of the universe at that time was very *dense*. We don't know how big the "universe" is after all (and the word "universe" implies *all* by its very root words), so even when much much denser we don't really know the physical extent of all that existed.

[@blackychouette]

🤔 About 25 seconds in, he explains why he doesn't... 🤯

[@TheOriginalDanEdwards]

@@blackychouette Which makes the title click-bait.

[@HAL-nt6vy]

@@TheOriginalDanEdwards So, I'm thinking "that's not right" and "this guy is not aware of the latest." I come down to the comments and find the sort of remarks I would expect. This guy is spending more time giving presentations and shopping for clothes than he is reading Astronomy (Astrophysics?) journals. I'm only casually interested in the subject and know more than this guy.

[@mikeavery4098]

The universe is a giant egg its existence in it's own time frame is only microseconds we're just the bacteria in the mucous membrane of the egg lol

[@scottrose3771]

One more layer... the universe COULD be one of many in a multiverse. The multiverse may be infinite.

[@plumleytube]

Should have said, we scientists actually don't know.

[@Paine137]

Not knowing also doesn't mean knowing nothing, though.

[@stevenschulte1475]

He did. At the beginning.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Just reapeating the sane things weve known .mostly going over all the popular tools and the readings.

[@Trev0r98]

Unanswered: "What Made Our Universe?".

[@Trev0r98]

@Fester Blats He kind of set himself up. Look at the title of this video: "What Made Our Universe?" Like he's going to answer that question. So yes, I expect him to explain something that nobody knows. That's usually why things are explained, by the way...because the audience (possibly nobody among it) doesn't know.

[@ronlokk]

I would like it if Dark matter could be called Green matter. Can we vote?

[@DungeonMetal]

Lets do it. My comment reply will represent the "No" vote. People who disagree can upvote mine. Will check back in 6 months.

[@RockHudrock]

gondiamond What do you have against unscientific, random nomenclature?! (In any case, here are my 👍🏼x ∞ votes for you)

[@jimsnow9286]

Sheldon?

[@eulyssey]

My god, this comment section is toxic! If you already know something then fine, go on your merry way and let others learn. Complaining that you already know something? Really? Congratulations, I guess?

[@energyshandrew2854]

I don’t think so Big Bang theory

[@BenKrisfield]

I hate it when speaker says, "the universe is a really big place." Like, no kidding. A little patronising, but interesting somewhat.

[@rev6litrej560]

Genesis 1 verse 1

[@kohoko1952]

Nice sweater dude...did you get a free bowl of soup with that? Oh, but it looks good on you, tho'!

[@dannydetonator]

Ever heard of geek shic?

[@ZOSOqueen]

I quite like his sweater 🤷🏼‍♀️

[@replica1052]

when the universe exists because negative space is impossible (newton 3.), the universe will never end (in an infinite universe everything that can happen will happen) (once it rains, fish can survive mars nature) when everyting comes from the sun, it makes sense to catch solar wind pull cables on from pole to pole, slightly off set for the dynamoeffect (water locks makes living easy)

[@ParalysedGekko]

Dude, i really recommend reading some scientific papers instead of SciFi novels. 'infinite' is a VERY human idea that has never been proven real anywhere in nature except for matematical structures. Secondly, mathematical passibilities don't determine the universe, even though the universe can be described matematically. Not every matematical idea corresponds to the physics of nature. Although we can read a lot of this BS: but it's just BS. You can put a -1 to time and can yell 'TIME RUNS BACKWARDS NOW' or put a -1 to space and yell 'LOOK MOM, NEGATIVE SPACE', but it would be best to observe first and describe later. Regarding the totality of the nonsense you wrote here, i still recommend some basic and very fundamental stuff to begin with as your statement is a collection of fragments you loosely stick together by not understanding anything.

[@replica1052]

@@ParalysedGekko negative space is impossible, the universe must be infinite or there would be something outside of the universe that have to be infinite

[@ParalysedGekko]

@@replica1052 The only thing that seems to be infinite in this universe is our stupidity imagining it. There are no signs of infinity on ANY scale of this universe. Sorry, listing the reasons for this would break any KZbin comment section. Just read more and stop talking such an epic nonsense.

[@replica1052]

@@ParalysedGekko when negative space is impossible, the infinite space left needs an equal counterforce and when you turn time down to zero (the beginning of time) we get infinite acelleration in all direktions where the couterforce is where the mass/energy of the universe comes from still

[@ParalysedGekko]

@@replica1052 You don't know, if time didn't exist at t=0 of our universe. Science can't even describe the concept of time successfully up till today. An 'equal counterforce' is something that your fantasy tells you, this is far away from observable, determinable observation. Start reading before you start writing. Simple as that. Your nonsense level is just epic.

[@mst.maishamaliha6069]

Enjoying and exiting 🇧🇩

[@bettyjane6684]

I only read the label: it’s not What it’s Who and it’s God Read Genesis and John 1

[@Elilmu_Nur]

I can't believe he just said: we do actually know quite a lot about some of the processes involved in making the universe around us. Stupid silly assumption He should say we know very few things or practically nothing

[@colepenick5238]

bing wing what makes that a stupid silly assumption? There are many evidences backing that statement.

[@ganniepeek5315]

Who took the picture of the telescope..🤔

[@canufi6my]

The space shuttle, just after it was set in orbit. Or maybe you thought it was a space fairy?

[@JMRSplatt]

What is the universe expanding in to? What made that.. .. .. does it end? ... brain hurts.

[@jaakkooksa5374]

Space curves onto itself, so that it does not have an edge. And since it does not have an edge, there is no such thing as something that is outside of the edge of the universe. Thus expansion of the universe occurs inside the universe itself.

[@BoilingFrogs2050]

funnily enough we are but one of infinite incarnations.

[@cosmossci4883]

@Pisstake he doesn't lol this is one of those guys who assume supernatural things without evidence

[@kafasnagorekanal1160]

özür dilerim pek dinleyemedim :(

[@se7187]

Alicem özkaya önemli değil

[@rodnyg7952]

...dude needs to find a sweater with longer sleeves

[@briankerr4512]

What made our universe ? ... the universe was not made ... it is being made ... now ... it is held in the consciousnesses of god as a thought ...

[@Laezar1]

And your evidence for that is?

[@briankerr4512]

@@Laezar1 Try the hermetic principles. Notlhing comes form nothing.

[@HunterXray]

"And God said..."

[@Pitsrforidiots]

How do I know I won't be watching this video? Because of it's title..."WHAT" made our universe?

[@iEuno1]

It takes one no to no one...

[@iEuno1]

Let your no be no and yea, why not?

[@DrBiBeatz]

Do you believe in magic? You basically are telling us to believe in magic that from nothing to our own universe

[@jaakkooksa5374]

Magic belongs to the domain of religions and other magical belief systems, not science.

[@oriyus]

What made our universe is an invalid question. To make something you have to have something to make it from. What created our universe is the real question.

[@benthere4380]

To create something you have to have something to create it from.

[@oriyus]

You could create something out of nothing but not make something out of nothing. Maybe its a language barrier, in my native tongue it makes difference.

[@benthere4380]

Actually the 2 words are synonyms but for the sake of this conversation let’s accept “create’ as meaning from nothing. But then (by definition) nothing could be created. I suspect you are implying that something such as the universe was “created” … and inferring by definition that only a god could create something out of nothing? If that is the case and to save time, let me jump ahead. How was a god created? Of course you can see where I am going with this. So to save time let me state my position. Man made God in man’s own image.

[@oriyus]

This was the first thing that popped out when i googled create vs make - "Create" means to bring something into existence, "Make" means to form something by putting things together. Yes they are similar words but not the same. Creating something out of this universe is probably invalid presumption. I have no idea what rules governs anything outside this universe. Its a contradiction, like someone standing on the event horizon, he exists and doesn't at the same time. You can have your opinions , its internet after all. But to state my position, I don't think makers of humans and creator of universe are necessarily same entity, even tho creator of the universe had to create makers of humans.

[@benthere4380]

I really don’t want to get into a pissing contest over the definition of the word create. We could do that ad nauseam. So to answer your original question, my answer is I don’t know. Do you have any personal idea or belief? (EDIT) - Sorry - I didn’t see your “entire” last response. Now that I have read it, I can see you believe the “Creator” of the universe had to create makers of humans.” Damn, that’s a contorted way to say “I don’t know how anything started but the universe had to be made before man”. Well, I have to agree I think the universe was here before us. But the word “Creator” implies some intentional intelligent entity. Is that what you believe? Well then it comes back to the old question. Who created the creator?

[@simpesfaip]

one of rare occasions when youtube comments are more interesting than content

[@subramaniamchandrasekar1397]

Please listen to me.. Here is how I am going to pull stories from sky. I don't know it, i haven't seen it, i will never know it. but will explain what it is and how nothing from nothing became stars planets and life. Hope now you understand everything loud and clear

[@dizznizz314]

Let me guess you have an answer..and you pray to “him” and he’s your real good buddy. Much more believable. At least science acknowledges what it doesn’t know. He says as much at the beginning of talk.

[@subramaniamchandrasekar1397]

@@dizznizz314 how many times we hear from scientists.. We believe or We think " on their theoretical assumptions? They push their ideas and beliefs as real. If No one been anywhere in deep space not seen anything, why create stories that they know something about that nothing. I believe in science. But not fakery or theoretical or mathematical assumptions. Regards.

[@cosmossci4883]

@@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 there was no story of nothing in this talk. Nothing has never been observed before. Everything in the universe is something. Why do you think that scientists say "we believe that this is this way because of X" or "we think..." that is because they aren't naive enough to think that they know everything and acknowledge the fact that they could be wrong about some things. Just because a scientist says something like "we think" doesn't mean it is a baseless assumption.

[@subramaniamchandrasekar1397]

@@cosmossci4883 they don't say that. That's the problem. Pushing some assumptions as real. Regards

[@cosmossci4883]

@@subramaniamchandrasekar1397 give an example please. What assumptions do scientists make and claim them to be true without any evidence to support their claim?

[@FarFromZero]

What made our universe? Consciousness, of course.

[@lauriebolles3149]

Eternal just a question: Where did the Consciousness come from? Do you need a physical entity to produce the consciousness for example a brain?

[@FarFromZero]

@@lauriebolles3149 Consciousness is not a thing, not an entity, it is not existing in the common meaning of existence. Not created and not destroyed it was, is and will be - consciousness. In the beginning (but there is no beginning) there was no form, just consciousness, the same you still can discover in deep meditation. Then there is no form, no dualisms and no time. It is still there, in the way it always was and will be. You can call this Nirwana. If you are not able to describe a formless peace and silence, you can try to put it into form, then you get something like the story of the garden eden. This is also Nirwana, when put into form (but its not really consistant). The thing you call "quantum fluctuation" is an interference of the empty, silent, peaceful consciousness with the idea of form. You can also call it eating from the tree of knowledge. The "big bang" was the beginning of form, and now most people are totally lost in the endless mystery of countless forms, while they lost any contact to their root, pure consciousness. Our physical world is a kind a playground for consciousness. Maybe you find some verifications for the idea, that only brains can "produce" consciousness. Then it's part of the story. Without consciousness there is no form, no dualisms, no universe. While consciousness in the world of forms is in some way split, because every individual in the physical world feels it is separated from others, it is still just one, cause we all share the same consciousness in deep meditation. There is some deep desire in our separated, dualistic, physical lifes to go back to the state of total unity, this desire is called love. I do not say this is true, there is no evidence. It's the picture I created out of the puzzle pieces I collected. It's the most accurate picture I can draw from this collection. You don't have to agree to any of this, then just leave it alone and continue to draw your own picture, so or so, be happy.

[@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

We have no idea!

[@davidhine619]

God made the universe, as written by prophet Moses in the Torah. Now, can YOU disprove this equation that calculates Hubble's Constant 2 X a Mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71 K/S/MPC. This comes from "The Principle of Astrogeometry". This disproves the guessing nonesense in the above video. The universe has a Creator!!

[@Kyliebobbyisla]

Oh behave

[@ChgoKurt]

We came after creators that made life forms for earth, those companies introduced life into their life forms to inhabit only this climate and atmosphere. Our Universe, is the center of the ending and the beginning, Its not there for you to understand what it is. It is no wider than the diameter of the surface of this planet. High definition is many millions years old technology, and we just got the basic form in our daily use, our heavens are screenless holograms running forever using our elecro-stratusphere for the current to operate this magnificent time piece endlessly, observe. I'm no expert but Big Bang inside the firmament, dark matter, waist of time theories. Theory = top random guess.

[@rowanballinger3690]

God made the universe! Simple

[@siwilson1437]

Probably not. And far from simple.

[@itsJPhere]

Which god?

[@anthonymoon3747]

Renowned Ballbagger

[@siwilson1437]

Which god^2 made god?

[@rowanballinger3690]

The universe and everything in it is far far too complicated to be an accident that evolved out of nothing. It’s far more probable that something intelligent created the universe like God

[@arlarl5122]

I feel like this talk was based on the series “The Cosmos”, with the loud clown Neil NeGrasse Tyson.

[@kimberleebrackley2793]

I feel our universe came of a chemical reaction ignited by a god sized electrode lm ok with it😀