Was Our Current Universe Already Inevitable At One Second Old? 

The bartender says "what are you having?" A tachyon walks into a bar.

i have a feeling that with the web telescope that number will change

I have 13.8k subscribers, it's as if the age of the universe is in my hands. In the occult they say the Universe is within us, but this is ridiculous.

You don't understand the size of a billion then. The difference in 1 million and 1 billion is like the difference in $1 and $1000. If a lifetime was 100 years then you would have to live 10 million lives to live 1 billion years. Now multiply that by 13.8

@@ReyZar666 I think you mean "more precise".

@@EmeraldEyesEsoteric You're a few decimal places off. You would also have to have twice as many subscribers as there are people alive.

technically it can't be, since it is part of the universe itself. so it must always be smaller. 😂💙

Naaah. The videos are waaay too slow. It took them 5 minutes only for the introduction.

@@darkmetaOFFICIAL oh No.. NP completeness at works again

He certainly makes it look and sound good making the quality appear quite excellent... except for when he makes wildly incorrect assertions such as "'4,800 new stars are born in the Milky Way' per second." This is not even remotely close to being accurate -- in fact, it probably couldn't be much further from the truth. "Star formation within the Milky Way currently involves about 4 solar masses of gas condensing into stars each year. Since the average star is less massive than the Sun, astronomers believe the Milky Way is producing roughly 7 stars per year ." -NASA

Except it's estimated to be 4800 stars born per second throughout the entire universe, not in just the milky way. I just started watching and noticed that.

*around 100 mil ton of hydrogen is turned into 95 mil ton of Helium. So its more like 5 mil ton of matter every second. But yeah its mind bending

Especially to think how little it actually effects the sun… unless you look extremely long term!

The video is wrong and it's actually 6 million tons per second. If it was only 1 million tons, we would all freeze to death. Every second, the sun converts 659 million tons of hydrogen into 653 million tons of helium and 6 million tons worth of heat and neutrinos. Of that, about 2 kilograms per second hits the Earth.

@@insanekos1 think he meant mass loss from the surface not mass loss through conversion to energy in its core (which it doesn’t lose right away).

Completely false. How much mass does a fluorescent bulb lose? These dopes are just making this up folks. How do they measure the mass of the sun?

Well said!

I ..second.. this

@@0kedoke nice lol

@@3nthamornin lol thanks -yung gawd

Nicely put, i totally agree with you, his narration is hypnotic, which makes the explanation of the facts very easy to follow for even a dim wit such as I, !!!

I'd also like to say that you managed to make this so easy to understand, yet not too dumbed down. I already knew a lot of this stuff from PBS Space Time, but still learned a lot from watching this documentary.

Thanks! What a lovely couple of comments. Exactly the aim of the channel.

@@HistoryoftheUniverse 😁

Yeah that other channel is just word salad..These guys are NOVA quality.. History of the Earth is just as good

​@@gzhshsgdhhshs I'm joining you in your choice of words.

Agree ..Best Channel ..Guys are so talented

Well they are not understandable for me.

I mean, yeah, him and his team. This ain't a one man show.

That first second was pretty bonkers

@@HistoryoftheUniverse If the next episode covered the following 2 seconds, the one after that 4 and so on, about half way through episode 59 we'd up to the present. 😀

soooo good, i love these too ESPECIALLY when done Pro, such as this!👽💯✌

quality AND quantity. 45 minutes of excellence

Except for when he makes wildly incorrect assertions such as "'4,800 new stars are born in the Milky Way' per second." This is not even remotely close to being accurate -- in fact, it probably couldn't be much further from the truth. "Star formation within the Milky Way currently involves about 4 solar masses of gas condensing into stars each year. Since the average star is less massive than the Sun, astronomers believe the Milky Way is producing roughly 7 stars per year." -NASA

It's crazy how he's so good with reading scritps, writing them, and then even edit it all with animations and music etc. This dude is just crazy good!

Lol. Good point!

@@vhawk1951kl first, he's quoting the name of the video, so he's fine. Second, everyone understands he's speaking colloquially. It would be almost as presumptuous as your comment for him to write: "History of the [Multiverse] (sic)" now shouldn't it... clown.

But Attenborough is a proven fraud.

My thoughts exactly. Was thinking hang on just one second...

Guys he's on about what happens in 1 second!! Remember there's between 100-400 billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy!!! Huge discrepancy i no but having that many stars being born and dying in one second doesn't sound too much in my estimation!!?!!

@@simonmcgrath4112 While these numbers are beyond imagination one can make a rough estimate. 4800 stars a second and roughly 30 milion seconds a year would amount to a yearly current star formation rate of roughly 150 billion stars per year. On the other hand, assuming the current star formation rate constant over time would lead to a too low result (by one to two orders of magnitude). So there have been episodes of more active star formation.

Guys, I'm a bell end!!! I've read his prologue and the young lads reply and it says......4800 stars in The Observable Universe not what i spouted out!!! Never to old or too much of a man to admit a mistake!! I cud have deleted it but I'll take it on the old Gunga Din!! (Just made that up, good eh?!!! Maybe not then!!?!

@@simonmcgrath4112 No problem at all. It is really easy to get the numbers not entirely right when dealing with large-scale astronomy. Sometimes it is even hard for professional astronomers.

It's me! Thanks Art, very kind.

Every night I let the playlist of all vids run in the background to sleep, it's just too calming

I was thinking about that too. What I realized though, was that helium fusion basically marks the end of the main series lifetime for a star. They expand and depending on mass may fuse several different additional elements after helium, but the time a star has left is very short by comparison to its lifetime while fusing hydrogen. So any stars that formed would basically be end of lifetime giants and likely die out after only a few million years

The whole "heavier proton" thing is where this video went off the rails for me. A neutron is basically a proton + an electron with some mass lost as binding energy. For protons to be heavier than neutrons would require different quarks and thus entirely different physics. There's no way to predict what would come from that.

Nobody knows why this is how it is. It just is. Depending on who you ask, this may or may not be a real problem with a real explanation. It depends on your philosophical perspective on the role of science.

@@davidhand9721 Yes, it's very nearly pointless to ask Physics "Why?" when it mostly answers only "What?" and "How?" But this particular asymmetry might hint at something non-philosophical. Same with the left-handedness of the weak force.

@@davidklang8174 The P symmetry violation is another big hint, yes. It almost necessitates a geometric approach to the weak force. There's a spatial component to it.

@@davidhand9721 Spatial, perhaps. But in how many dimensions? I'm a bit of a 4D chauvinist, but at least the time component seems critical. The weak force can pluck matter or antimatter from the vacuum as needed (given available energy) to conserve charge and spin. And what's up with the Z? Symmetry breaking in flavor-changing currents seems absolute, but the weak neutral currents, though ambidextrous, are still preferentially left-handed. What does that hint at I wonder?

I can’t help but ask what if the universe isn’t expanding? I’m in no way a scientist, just a cosmic enthusiast at best so this is just conjecture from an ape. Thinking about the void we’re floating in expanding just seems…. Preposterous

The best explanation to "what was at the big bang" is "no idea, physics doesn't work at that point"

wrong way round. life arose within the confines of the constants.

That's a similar way to how I see it. If the physical constants were different in a different universe than any intelligent life that may have arisen there could also say that their physical constants are also "fine tuned" to allow for life to evolve, although maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective.

@@markgallagher5908 No you’re definitely on the right trial our “fine tuning problem”. isn’t a problem at all mainly just a distorted perspective, tbh I don’t understand why it got mainstream as significant in the first place. 🤷‍♀️

@@kw8274 i agree that a singular deterministic will driving the vast, boundless enormity of existence is equally as implausible as such enormity being largely outwardly recursive as a manifestation of deterministic math. your assertion is that the way things are now are not necessarily prerequisite for equal or greater total system complexity; humans are bound by the inexorable grip of perceptual geocentrism, and our logic demands a linear progression of ideas that proves cumbersome in truly out-of-the-box thinking. i'm sure if I understood more about the emergent properties of space-time and the topological manifolds which define it, i'd be able to offer a useful commentary, but in lieu of that I'll just restate what you said slightly differently so it looks like i offered a novel idea... i mean, uh, well, consider this: what you're saying here is fundamentally no different than what the so-called "many worlds hypothesis" proponents are suggesting, except you're taking in a different direction. rather than imply that quantum events diverge such that infinite sets of universe-states can be generated from any singular "waveform collapse", there are infinite "waveform collapses" that can generate a singular universe-state. the distinction is subtle, but basically what I'm implying is that instead of starting with x=0 and iterating incrementally, we take vaguely determined parameters like "complex life" and suppose that any number of miniscule gluon nudges and cosmological constant shifts might lead us to achieving those parameters, but in ways we couldn't feasibly comprehend due to the bias of our limited human perception. when you're discussing abstractions like the intricacies of multiple universes and time-line bifurcations, you might as well double down and get REAL weird with it, in my opinion. it seems that determinism is the kicker here, isn't it? this is a question of such dubious importance and quizzical complexity, we've been arguing about it for as long as there were two humans with separate philosophies to argue it with. if you think i've perceived your intentions correctly, i'd like to tempt you with one last morsel of speculation, presumably one you'd like to respond to in turn. what if this ephemeral teleology that haunts our collective consciousness is, in fact, as real as any fundamental force but rather than being the will of a singular all-too-human architect-consciousness or the unerring procession of causality as determined by an ontological pinball game set into motion at the big-bang, what if both were true? what if determinism's practical manifestation in our observable cosmos is an illusion of a greater phenomenon, namely, that of the whistling arc of the Arrow of Time whose fletching is causality and whose head is meaning itself. a teleological warhead propagating throughout the boundless medium of creation that folds so much interconnectedness and relational information in on itself that a mass-accretion disk of complexity tugs on the past and future with equal intensity; a determinism whose inevitability is precise and methodical, but impersonal and excessively iterant only in that it is equally individual for every energy transfer that occurs along every field-line in every plane of reference and in every moment in time.

that is a interesting question

Great question and well put might I add 👍

Apparently yes... I remember reading somewhere that electromagnetic fields were apparently not a thing for 300,000 years after the birth of the universe. They only started appearing after 350,000 or so years.

If you read up on the Planck Era and the eras that come after it, I think you will have better understanding of what we know about the appearance of the all the fundamental forces of nature.

@@smrutismarak9503 Cool, thanks!

Yeah not going to happen. It'll be exactly like before you were born. Nothing.

Then you are above the average!

lol i noticed this as well

Yes! A mix up. Thanks Big Dave

I think that number plays some concepts.

This is all supposition , it can't be proved . Besides time is relative

Yeah agreed, great production values but its not exactly "literally free". You're getting advertised at, and he and his team are making those sweet sweet dollars from it. That's how the last 90 years of TV broadcasts have worked.

Congratulations ,your the only person (except me) well to be fair I haven't read every single comment , anyway as you say it was a different time scale back then actually time was not even in existence so cannot be measured grrrr.

Perhaps that's a good way of looking at it, to compare the time in a black hole to the time in the big bang. It could be an infinite amount of time until this whole process completed and time "began" as normal again.

@@vhawk1951kl All models of the "creation of the universe" are from the viewpoint of an imaginary viewer, outside the system -- the Genesis story, the Big Bang, Time Chaos, etc. The intent of using an imaginary viewer is to comprehend the unimaginable, to allow words to describe a system that precludes existence.

Thought the exact same thing

Plus later stars would be much rarer. They would need more mass to ignite. It wouldn't be an issue to create heavier elements and have them decay back into helium, but hydrogen would stay incredibly rare.

Wish you all the best

Not actually Spanish (I wish!) but I do live here. HOLA!

Also great, hope you enjoy it here!

Yeah fake news, buddy 🙄

@@blokin5039 What u talkin about..!?🤨

👍

Simple Google search will prove this right with plenty of evidence how and use the copernican principle ourselves our planet our galaxy should be just one indistinguishable dot among billions upon billions of dots the universe is massive beyond what our brains can even begin to understand

@@benward837 "will prove this right" - what do you mean by "this"? My comment or the video? Because if you google this fact, it will tell you the number 4800 stars per second was calculated for the entire universe, not just the Milky Way.

@@wZem never said just the milky way

​@@benward837 ??? The video says "4800 new stars are born in the Milky Way". I even put a timestamp. I can't tell if you agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Nothing ever goes faster than the speed of light through space-time. However, that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space-time itself. That's how warp drives might work one day.

This was the point at which I paused, and replayed it! So from answer below: yes space-time itself can move many times faster than paper of light! Not heard that one before.