Your Daily Equation #30: What Sparked the Big Bang?

Episode 30 #YourDailyEquation: Even after astronomical observations convinced Einstein that the universe is expanding there remained the question of what drove the universe to expand in the first place--that is, what sparked the Big Bang. Join Brian Greene to explore one prominent possibility: repulsive gravity ignited a brief but powerful burst off cosmic inflation.
Even if your math is a bit rusty, join Brian Greene for brief and breezy discussions of pivotal equations and exciting stories of nature and numbers that will allow you to see the universe in a new way.
The World Science Festival (WSF) is an innovative multi-media organization that produces original live and digital content straddling the arenas of science, technology, the arts, media, performance and education. With the goal of radically transforming public perceptions of science, WSF creates world-class programming, both live on stage and televised, featuring inspired collaborations, outstanding talent and novel production techniques that bring scientific discovery, insight and perspective to a broad general audience.
Official Site: www.worldsciencefestival.com
Twitter: / worldscifest
Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
Instagram: / worldscifest
Subscribe: / worldsciencefestival

[@simonapalosan3208]

I become addicted to the daily equation! And the old odd shaped tree fits perfectly into the scene.

[@paulc96]

Thanks for another great episode of Your Daily Equation. Take Care & Stay Safe. Best wishes from West Wales. Thanks Prof. Paul C

[@jimm123]

This lecture fills a lot of gaps in my understanding of inflationary theory. Thx Brian

[@dougg1075]

Take us on a tour of you crib man! I want to see the professor’s house:)

[@garyburnell6775]

This is the most helpful Education on the net, This was just what I was looking for to understand the math and concepts of physics at a new level. So Thank You and keep going, please.

[@danielbachour9987]

Great as always professor!! Awesome! Love this series!! I'm going to do the calculations to get to the equation for the scale factor! Hope it won't as hard as it looks! Never done it before!

[@das_it_mane]

Thank you for these videos professor 🙏

[@rkennedy1000]

BTW: I am 72yo, a retired Electrical Engineer, a.k.a. lifelong scientist wannabe, and find you approach to explaining these concepts truly exciting. Thanks for doing this.

[@vinnyhorapeti2461]

You should start your own channel sir

[@cryptobrian4732]

Thank u for taking ur time to do these videos. I am interested in physics and astronomy as a hobby and love learning about all of this stuff thanks for making it easy to understand

[@hubertheiser]

I like the fact that you also go into the criticism on inflationary theory. Knowing the weaknesses and limitations of a theory is IMO as important as understanding the theory itself. Thank you for another great epsisode which fills in the mathematical gaps that are left open in so many publications!

[@UtraVioletDreams]

28:08 Ah, yes you showed this graph in one of the WSF talks where also quantum fluctuations where discussed along with a cool animation. Back then I was wondering about the mathematics. This is so cool to get to know! Edit: This is so super cool to get to know!

[@scienceaffairs2919]

Thanks KZbin to give us opportunity to learn complicated topics from experts , I think if I wanted to take tution form Brian separately it will costly

[@chazbrown403]

Thanks for all your great videos and taking the time to make them. I don’t always follow what you’re teaching but I listen intensely to ever word. You have an amazing ability/gift of teaching... I first got hooked watching your much older videos and lectures and my favorite would have to be the one you did with Alan Alda as i am a big fan of him as well. Thanks again Brian and stay safe.

[@Dr10Jeeps]

Now that was very informative. Thank you.

[@iqdx]

A few episodes back you commented that fewer of us had watched the one on Noether etc. IMHO it was the best of an already outstanding set. For the first time (after years of struggle), thanks to you, I understand the basic concepts and the significance of her insight. Please do not hesitate to repeat that level of math content. Thank you!

[@UtraVioletDreams]

Suggestion: In one of the episodes you talked about entanglement. In addition, could you please tell us about quantum tunnelling?

[@johnstfleur3987]

THANK YOU PROFESSOR GREENE.

[@sandrasandra7593]

Dr green you explain beautifully well, in a pleasant way, and speak very clearly, which is essential for those like me who are learning English

[@Name-js5uq]

I love learning from you!! Because you make it easy to understand.

[@neonblack211]

Dear Greene, Are you going to get to string theory and the various mathematics related to it at some stage? As a casual physics fanatic, I would love some insight into that area specifically related to the math; rather than the concepts used to make it analogous or easy to understand for people with no knowledge of math. I know it’s an enormous topic but I would still like to see something from it, especially from someone like yourself. Thanks for all you have brought to the scientific community!

[@Name-js5uq]

As I am listening to you all I want to do is say is thank you so much for your time to help others learn as you have. 🙂l

[@woody7652]

Thanks, Brian!

[@DrPrashant_Sharma]

Please comment on latest NASA observation related to parallel universe.

[@neonblack211]

Prashant Sharma what NASA observation are you referring to, Specifically?

[@barbarafraile5499]

YES!! Please , I have the same question I will bring it to the Q&A

[@neonblack211]

Obi Wan yes well assumed there was no observational or experimental evidence yet for parallel universes, that would be enormous news.... I’m not going to say it could never happen though

[@neonblack211]

Obi Wan especially from NASA, lol. They aren’t sitting around comming up with experiments to try to price parallel universes

[@DrPrashant_Sharma]

Basically, it (above question) may sound very unrefined and crude to many. But I just wanted his point of view on this area, being curious after reading multiple "media" reports which may have carried some probable science along. Not believing in "backward going time" though!

[@HumansSaga]

Sir , Think you for all that , that is amazing .

[@markheller197]

Thought I saw this already. I realizes there was a lecture from the left side of the country yesterday on Fields. Nice to know the "story" is consistent perhaps a Theory?

[@amadouduck4296]

Thanks Brian for good equations.

[@toued4714]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK GREENE SIR

[@f2pgamer828]

Please do a session dedicated for Mandela effect theories or debunking some famous ones. Thanks!

[@THESocialJusticeWarrior]

Cedar house I see you got there. I had one of those. Hope you don't have any squirrels, woodpeckers, or carpenter bees. I had all three and they won the war. Love the video!

[@cosmotalk7227]

#01:26, Proff. Brian Greene, where did you find that Picture, both Hubble aside of Einstein looking through the Mt. Wilson telescope.

[@michaelwhalan9783]

Thanks for the B. G. Bang

[@mikinick3593]

Hi Brian: I propose you to talk about black hole entropy equation, wich is proportional to surface instead of volume. I remember to read at the end of one of your books that, because of that, something bidimensional may be the basic unit of spacetime. Any news about that? Best regards from Barcelona

[@BadassRaiden]

I was just thinking the inflaton field right before he said it, and then he said it, and i was like, so im not so stupid after all! xD

[@localtitans4166]

Maybe universe is expanding only to our perspective

[@bernardmcgarvey4169]

I thought I saw where to get the predicted spectrum curve to fit the data you have 6 adjustable parameters to optimize the fit - if this is correct is the quality of the fit so impressive?

[@martintopinka8295]

Very interesting! Thank you. Why people use the V(Phi) plot with a rolling ball in the direction of the grad V, and not rather Phi(t) plot to describe inflation? Isn't it equivalent to use the field or its potential?

[@Name-js5uq]

Wow I think I remember learning this at least 30 to 35 yrs ago I think.

[@hoesseinalkisaei]

Does anyone know what iPad software/app the professor is using? I would like to give lectures in a similar manner. Hope anyone could help!

[@gurpreetsingh2390]

My question why or how moving charge produce magnetic field. Please answer

[@sanjeevsoni4962]

Hello , Please can some one answer my this question : When every thing in universe is moving , then every point in space has different time tick/interval Then in whose time frame that 2nd derivative if a(t) is taken

[@woodstockjon420]

🤣👍🏼😎👏🏼

[@mikemoss2275]

Read relativity theory, once done then ask again

[@sanjeevsoni4962]

@@mikemoss2275 Yes I have not red Relativity Theory... But is this incorrect that when we are taking derivative with respect to time , we are assuming that there is some global time with respect to which we are finding rate of change (derivative)...

[@PhysicalrealityNet]

Professor Greene, thank you for an enjoyable presentation. I should be grateful if you could comment on what I have to say. There are two issues that come to mind from the interpretation of the maths that you have put forward, and which I feel have not been addressed by physicists. One, is that the theory proposes that matter has developed from local fluctuation of the quantum field, which appeared in a big bang from nowhere. Unless something is eternal, then when it materialises in time, it must have come from somewhere. Therefore, one can assume that the field (the fabric of space) is eternal and therefore it pre-existed the formation of energy and matter in space. This can set an initial condition for the relevant maths, with the field initially having no fluctuations, i.e. a flat space with zero pressure. Two, the fact that negative pressure leads to the expansion of space, can only mean that matter, is continuing to form in space. This is because according to string theory mass is a volume of a locally exposed background vacuum, and therefore it must possess negative pressure equal in magnitude to the positive pressure in its immediate surrounding fabric. These two issues call for a revision of the interpretation of the maths, for they lead one to conclude that the expansion must have begun at gradual base, at absolute zero, i.e. absolute entropy. Thus, as individual matter particles formed, temperature began to increase locally. Moreover, the rate of creation of matter and energy is proportional to the amounts in existence, hence the accelerating expansion. On this account, the drive behind the expansion, which counteracts gravity, is the result of the accelerating rate of creation of particles. On this account, the expansion of universe maintains the density of matter and energy in the universe, and as they continue to form in all direction, the horizon problem is resolved. This proposition solves all outstanding problem in cosmology, including that of the low entropy of the universe. It also suggests that the universe is a reoccurring phenomenon.

[@dineshsuthar2889]

Great sir

[@marceljanssens5935]

Aren'r we all waiting for an episode of Your Biggest Daily Idea in the Equation Universe?

[@narendras8772]

Sir, didn't Einstein term that addition of cosmological constant was his biggest blunder? Then is it correct to use the same condition to verify inflationary idea, i.e P = -rho ?

[@martintopinka8295]

Hello from Czech Rep. I wonder how happened that inflaton field created particles in all points of today's observable universe (smaller that time) in a more or less homogeneous manner. In other words why the inflation stopped at the same moment in what we see today as the observable universe. Am I right that the density of the inflaton field was not reduced by expansion since it the energy density was constant?

[@moonboygaming8418]

Thanks

[@johnsmith1171]

How do you derive the time that inflatonary expansion occurred for?

[@jacksonkirka]

What is the mathematical constant for the big bang measured in mass?

[@haripreetham6324]

I seem to understand theories at speed of light .....but I absolutely suck at equations and solving problems (mathematical stuff)......give me some suggestions ..pls😓😓

[@Usman-eg8se]

‘Please write… thank you very much.’ 15:40

[@martijn130370]

Quite amazing how a model can predict what conditions are necessary for the (or a) Big Bang to happen. So you want the exponential growth in scale factor, and it turns out mathematically that a nearly constant value of the inflaton field does that, by sourcing repulsive gravity. The maths does not explain though how such a field would and could come into existence, so the questions are shifted. But still the correlation with reality is stunning, especially since the graph is really waivy and irregular and yet all is in concordance. I would say in broad lines, inflation really must be 'it'.

That was incredibly funny about her husbands envolope answere. I love your show and it is funny. Thank you. I listen to your exsplanation and I am a old guy who just started.partical phyics for fun and I am blown away by you guys being so super smart. I love this stuff it is so interesting like quantum intanglement is just so way out there it makees me laugh. I love all the physics shows I learn so much, and on top of that you are a very nice guy which makes it even more fun. Best Regards; Kevin McCarthy

[@sarmadnajim4839]

Amazing

[@vaidikgheravada9471]

Hi sir.. I have some Theories for physics... Please replay me... Please😫🙏🙏

[@mahmoudkharoof6699]

But why do we always assume c=h(bar)=1 in every time we try to figure out the expansion of the universe, I know that we adopt them but why, do they make our calculations harder and makes the math much difficult to deal with or is it the nature of the expansion of the universe?

[@RudeRud7]

I was wondering if Brian could talk about Rose Katherine Morton or the Morton number which is named after her. I dont understand her papers. It seems like it is a not widely used physics term.

[@bassdrones]

One more question... given that the Universe as we understand it, and everything within it, is made of fields which relate to matter in analogous ways... Upon reaching almost absolute 0, would the fields react like matter does, do we have any insight? Thank you sir, for sharing your knowledge!

[@bassdrones]

Is it possible that the force driving the expansion of space-time also affects the fields, but on a time-scale much bigger than we can perceive in several generations?

[@mcconkeyb]

Oh my, too many fields! 1) QED 2) Space-Time 3) Higgs Field 4) Inflatron Field Maybe in the future we'll propose a dark matter field, and maybe even a dark energy field. Just too many fields.

[@TheMorpheuuus]

Fantastic episode Professor 👍, can you please discuss about Big Bounce introduced by Quantum Loop Gravity? Thank you

[@naimulhaq9626]

Hawking radiation and his calculation of entropy gives a deep insight of QM and leads us to comprehend how particles are produced out of the quantum fields, when he showed how pairs of virtual particles and anti-particles are produced at the event horizon. The anti-particle falls into the BH while a real particle is ejected. Implying how the QF can simulate conscious intelligent observer, collapsing the field to produce particles and hence life, human consciousness, soul etc.

[@ToddDesiato]

If you think of the scale factor "a" as the reciprocal length of your local ruler, say "a meter stick". Then, the Hubble constant reduces to the meter stick shrinking by 6.4 nanometers/century relative to galaxies as seen from Earth, as they were in the distant past. i.e., it appears from our perspective that the universe is expanding, when it is really our ruler that is shrinking as Entropy increases, and the energy inflating matter runs down. It seems to me, this approach avoids the preposterous notion that enormous amounts of energy must be created from nothing to fill in the newly expanded volume of space, in an expanding universe.

[@joedoggggs]

Hi Sir. Would it make a difference if it would have been a kind of outward vacuum force "sucking" the universe apart???

[@nihlify]

How would a vacuum suck another vacuum?

[@chrimony]

Parameter tuning is a blight on science.

[@CstriderNNS]

If the inflaton field is constant in space wouldn't this e equivalent to information traveling faster then light ?

[@TipSheikh]

My only only knock is I wish he’d write “d” less like a 2. They look identical and for I can’t remember sometimes if he said something is a d or a 2 so it changes loads of equations lol especially with fractions and exponents lolol

[@Valkyrie801]

The "Cosmological Constant" does not indicate a big bang because it is constant. "Time was, this is, that shall be." What was there before time?

[@everything4390]

can i get scholarship columbia university if ,how much

[@localtitans4166]

Professor is it possible that gravity is not what we actually think it is like..I mean gravity must not be something which only attracts...maybe it is the geometry of the spacetime and not some sort of matter to expanding universe...well I am a class 10th student...so it might not be the right time to talk about it

[@localtitans4166]

I don't you all know better

[@pwatsky]

I am a little puzzled by the fact that we refer to gravity as a force as well as a warping of spacetime...how does warping cause a force to exist. And if the sun exerts its gravity way out to Pluto, etc, wouldn't that suggest that gravity is not a weak force???? Just being inquisitive.

[@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos]

There is a difference between weak/strong forces (the strength of forces acting on elementary particles for example) and over how large distance they act or are relevant. The later is not really due to interaction strength but is caused by charges preferring zero charge arrangements. You are right that one shouldn't call gravity in GR a force. A force is something that changes the "forceless movement" (for Newton that was on a straight line with constant speed). But what is the natural forceless movement in curved spacetime? There are no straight lines anymore. The natural thing is to assume movement on approximately straight lines (geodesics) to be consistent with Newton (zero curvature limit). Prof. Brian demonstrated it with a basketball some episodes before. The situation is a bit more difficult to understand when spacetime is involved, but let's ignore that. So for particles confined on the surface of a basketball starting at the "equator" with the same speed towards the north pole they will get closer and closer. So it looks like they are attracted towards each other. Naively one could call this a force. The situation is a bit more complex as not only space but spacetime is curved, but that is essentially what is going on.

[@diogenes999]

How is pressure defined in the absence of WALLS?

[@AdamGNordin]

Calculate the kiss of God is like calculating the creation of this universe.

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

Personally I find inflationary theory based on the inflaton field a bit of a stretch ... get it, stretch. Oh come on, people!

[@BenKrisfield]

I'm going with the term "The Big Pop". Bang sounds like too much information when talking about the the beginning of the Everything/Universe, I guess you have to start with the least amount of information possible ie 01. So, 0 popped, infecting 1, causing a chain reaction.

[@aimfail]

Argh im expanding. Ohh its just me eating too much due to quarantine. But is it only empty space that is expanding?

[@theoschijf8155]

Professor Green, if one day we discover that there can be an explanation for the red shift of distant galaxies othe than them racing away from us. We could find that the mere distance itself creates the red shift, an effect that we have never seen around our own galaxy because the effect is too small. If we discover that .... then do we need the Big Bang at all? The universe could be quite stable and endless.

[@jainalabdin4923]

The multiple big bangs suggests the greater universe is a bubble universe and not a multiverse as in Many Worlds theory, right? Also, the big bang doesn't necessarily suggest a start from a singularity, but can be a start from something on the scale of the Planck Length. And be more like a bounce from such a small scale. Considering the bubble nature of the greater universe, and the bouncing nature of the local universe, the whole picture is like a frothing of quantum spacetime over eternity.

[@Bb5y]

I think its statistically true that the majority of unions that have taken place in the human race were between cousins until about 150years ago.

[@Damieru]

If the universe expanded beyond the observable universe in 10^(-33) seconds, wouldn't this expansion be 10^(holy shit) times faster than the speed of light? This puzzled me. 😨

[@Raptorel]

It is, although it's a rate, not a speed. That is allowed for spacetime, the speed of light limit is for objects traveling *through* spacetime.

[@debray-kingbomatthieu5579]

BRIAN Houston, Brian asking question. HOUSTON Massive Tachyonic Condensation... Brian.

[@echadmiyodea]

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

[@jetlast4131]

it's my equation only my

[@AdamGNordin]

You could speak for a 100 years day and night about the nr.1 without break and it still wholud be a short video

[@pandabearguy1]

Spoiler: I sparked the Big Bang

[@ausafahmad9384]

Please talk about predestination.... supposedly we are able to travel back in time so can we change it? Can we kill our own folks? or if we change the past, will there be an alternative world? Hope that you will make this concept clear! Thank you

[@susanj.newman9756]

Susan - The Senior Citizen. Hawking radiation tries to explain black holes losing mass, but if one of the virtual particles falls into the event horizon, doesn’t that add mass to the black hole?

[@techdimensions2p336]

Soo what cosd the baong who's inflation never stoped. Or because it stoped new inflation emerged trgering the first jub in to space dimension 🛑💢🎈🌐➕➖⤴️⤵️

[@YahyaNoahMijthab]

galaxies that were not existed yet, besides what is the definition of (space) and (location) that were not exist in early universe . I am a big supporter of the Big Bang theory, but I find it incomplete, so it is possible that existence has no beginning and will not have an end.

[@debray-kingbomatthieu5579]

Brian Greene, why doesn't use the hypotetical tachyon to explain Big Bang origin and expansion? After all, a false vacuum is a phenomenon announcing metaphysics energy seeking equilibrium up to minimum. Sole candidate, Tachyon can give a good answer, in adding constant in queue. Something like a dot going faster than light meet at the same point several times, Larsen Effect is same thing. Tachyon being everywhere would seek to , no explose, but compensate the overload in creating *positive particles*. It's existing, exiting because QFT is exactly a proof that spacetime creates and does not need to be created. Dark Energy , Dark Matter , Matter, Energy are not separate elements lying in a field. The field is not subject of these transformations, or it is useless, nothing Impact it. The gravitational field is duality , antigravitational/gravitational. It increases or decreases according the amount of positive things it does... Maybe disturbing it is, seems well real.

[@terrywbreedlove]

What is Gravity we know its effects but what is it.

[@ToddDesiato]

It's a belief that the empty vacuum of space is curved by the presence of matter and/or energy, elsewhere.

[@terrywbreedlove]

Todd Desiato Yes curving space is the effect but how.

[@ToddDesiato]

@@terrywbreedlove General Relativity can't answer that question. The "presence" of the energy/momentum tensor "Tuv", is "how" space-time is curved, as described by "Guv". There is no other mechanism required in GR. It lacks those quantum mechanical details. Thats why we are looking for a theory of quantum gravity. However, the biggest obstacle is human opinions on exactly "what" a theory of quantum gravity should be. A theory of quantized space-time, or a theory of quantized matter that exhibits the same behavior. Loop QG leans toward the former, while string theory leans toward the latter.

[@harshiljain2368]

Can it be possible that when a star's core has enough energy that it smashes the particles at such energies as that before the higgs field turned ON, (then according to the same theory) the particles were massless, all 4 forces were unified and therefore the star collapses to make a black hole. Thus, light cannot escape from the black hole as the forces are combined, and light is overpowered. This also verifies that most black holes need to have a high mass, density in order to cater to the energy needs. And because the higgs field is the PROBABLE reason for asymmetry between particles and anti particles, with the higgs field off, there is perfect symmetry, the particles annihilate each other, leaving nothing detectable with the STRONG unified forces on top. And because all the mass, particles have been converted to energy, energy bends spacetime, therefore we experience a "gravitational" pull. Classical physics does not account for a unified force and thus our physics breaks down at the blackhole.

[@rkennedy1000]

Does time exist in a singularity, as in the universe before the Big Bang, or inside of a Black Hole? Your ball rolling down a hill makes sense, but what started the ball rolling? I think we need a better understanding of time, in singularities, in Black Holes at at quantum scales.

[@ianmarkhammes2071]

The real answer would not take 36 minutes to explain.

[@yasfreeze6479]

So that's the explanations in the Koran confirmed - as to creation, maintenance and expansion of creation. The next for you to look into is into destruction, repetition and succession (meaning in the sense of creation(S)/creature(S) similar to destroyed creation(s)/creature(s) with successor or substituting creation(S)/creatures(s) whose living/existence has a purpose). And while we are at it, why are we fond of exploring space to find alternative forms of life when the phenomena may be in plain sight - just because we dont see it does not mean we need to spend gazillions of dollars and brain power to look so much beyond when we have not yet understood what's plain in sight? If you'd consider capitalizing on a book of knowledge, would it not better assist you in your pursuance of observing what needs to be observed in a faster and more efficient way? See - its better to know the truth / end of what we want to understand rather than explore unguided as to what end we want to achieve. The process of observation and understanding would then have this Big Bang effect. I thought humans were not patient but you scientists are just not eager to speed up!!!

[@FaceFcuk]

The simulation theory

[@rolo5424]

This is very interesting but doesn't really address what sparked the Big Bang at all. Where did all the stuff come from? Where did the laws of the universe, time and space come from? How it expanded and grew and evolved from the start is interesting but it does not address the real question. Where did all the matter come from? Where did the laws of science come from? Where did information for the universe come from? And what kicked it all off? All I know for sure is that it didn't just come out of nothing. So addressing the expansion of the universe does not address its genesis.

[@drwho7545]

That would be like one ginormous universe compressed into one hedious blackhole of infinitude size having the light repulsing into the present. My thoughts are better than yours.

[@leekleek1]

Watching him get old hurts 😭

[@clubadv]

Why did this not get more views. Oh yeah everyone's watching nonsense

[@Valdagast]

What I don't understand is why the universe would continue to expand once the initial "push" is over. My understanding is that the galaxies themselves are not moving apart in space - it is space itself which is expanding. It sounds like space-time itself has some inertia.

[@nihlify]

Dark energy. And if Brian could answer that question he'd have a Nobel prize tomorrow.

[@ksifilms3115]

The raisins in a loaf of bread analogy might help you imagine it. Bread continues to rise and raisins move further away from each other.

[@ToddDesiato]

Look at it this way: If you think of the scale factor "a" as the reciprocal length of your local ruler, say "a meter stick". Then, the Hubble constant reduces to the meter stick shrinking by 6.4 nanometers/century relative to galaxies as seen from Earth, as they were in the distant past. i.e., it appears from our perspective that the universe is expanding, when it is really our ruler that is shrinking as Entropy increases, and the energy inflating matter runs down. It seems to me, this approach avoids the preposterous notion that enormous amounts of energy must be created from nothing to fill in the newly expanded volume of space, in an expanding universe. It also answers your question without the need of introducing Dark Energy.

[@Valdagast]

@@ksifilms3115 Yes but _why_ does the bread continue to rise? It's not because of dark energy, because we believed that the universe was still expanding (although the expansion was slowing down) when we thought there was no dark energy.

[@Valdagast]

@@nihlify It's not because of dark energy, because we believed that the universe was still expanding (although the expansion was slowing down) when we thought there was no dark energy.