Did Time Start at the Big Bang?

Share
Embed
  • Published on Jul 18, 2019
  • Thanks to LastPass for sponsoring PBS DS. You can check out LastPass by going to lastpass.onelink.me/HzaM/2019Q3JulyPBSspace
    Our universe started with the big bang. But only for the right definition of “our universe”. And of “started” for that matter. In fact, probably the Big Bang is nothing like what you were taught.
    A hundred years ago we discovered the beginning of the universe. Observations of the retreating galaxies by Edwin Hubble and Vesto Slipher, combined with Einstein’s then-brand-new general theory of relativity, revealed that our universe is expanding. And if we reverse that expansion far enough - mathematically, purely according to Einstein’s equations, it seems inevitable that all space and mass and energy should once have been compacted into an infinitesimally small point - a singularity. It’s often said that the universe started with this singularity, and the Big Bang is thought of as the explosive expansion that followed. And before the Big Bang singularity? Well, they say there was no “before”, because time and space simply didn’t exist. If you think you’ve managed to get your head around that bizarre notion then I have bad news. That picture is wrong. At least, according to pretty much every serious physicist who studies the subject. The good news is that the truth is way cooler, at least as far as we understand it.

    Check out the new Space Time Merch Store!
    pbsspacetime.com/
    Support Space Time on Patreon
    www.patreon.com/pbsspacetime
    Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
    Written by Matt O'Dowd
    Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer
    Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
    Produced By: Kornhaber Brown
    Big Bang Supporters:
    Anton Lifshits
    David Nicklas
    Fabrice Eap
    Juan Benet
    Justin Lloyd
    Morgan Hough
    Quasar Supporters:
    Mark Heising
    Mark Rosenthal
    Tambe Barsbay
    Vinnie Falco
    Hypernova Supporters:
    Chuck Zegar
    Danton Spivey
    Donal Botkin
    Edmund Fokschaner
    Hank S
    John Hofmann
    John R. Slavik
    Jordan Young
    Joseph Salomone
    kkm
    Mark Heising
    Matthew
    Matthew O'Connor
    Syed Ansar

    Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:

    Adrien Hatch
    Alexey Eromenko
    Andreas Nautsch
    Bradley Jenkins
    Brandon Labonte
    Carlo Mogavero
    Daniel Lyons
    David Behtala
    DFaulk
    Dustan Jones
    Geoffrey Short
    James Flowers
    James Quintero
    John Funai
    John Pollock
    Jonah
    Jonathan Nesfeder
    Joseph Dillman
    Joseph Emison
    Josh Thomas
    Kevin Warne
    Kyle Hofer
    Malte Ubl
    Mark Vasile
    Nathan Hitchings
    Nick Virtue
    Paul Rose
    Ryan Jones
    Scott Gossett
    Sigurd Ruud Frivik
    Tim Jones
    Tim Stephani
    Tommy Mogensen
    Yurii Konovaliuk
    سلطان الخليفي

Comments • 4 979

  • boop bwep
    boop bwep 2 hours ago

    I don't see how this conflicts with that "certain crowd of people" really. If anything it's so mind blowing and complicated that this singularity itself has the same definition as their "" God" if they don't want to believe that this is real then seems to me they wouldn't think their God is real, since the descriptions are so similar.

  • PsyintZ
    PsyintZ 5 hours ago +1

    I wonder how much the singularity weighed before it went "bang" all over the place.

  • James Krug
    James Krug 5 hours ago

    TIME STARTS WHEN ENTROPY STARTS!!!

  • John Augsburger
    John Augsburger 7 hours ago

    Thanks

  • Willy Kling
    Willy Kling Day ago

    Okay, so the Big Bang could not have happened because before time there could be no cause and effect to create the universe. And they solve this by postulation a eternal universe without a beginning? That sounds like the easy way out, sounds very scientific, sounds like bullshit.
    I have been told a lie my whole life and since I was 8 everyone avoided my questions about cause and effect telling me that this was too complicated for me to understand and that I should just trust the scientists. Yeah sure, just invent 11 dimensions, branes and unicorns to compute your way out of this. It is just as logical to postulate a creator at this point.

    • The Seeker
      The Seeker 9 hours ago

      @Willy Kling if Creator is the same as the material universe we living in, then that will lead us to the same question on how the material universe exists since every effect must have a cause in our universe.

    • Willy Kling
      Willy Kling 11 hours ago

      @The Seeker Try this thought: The creator IS the same as the universe. We are not only part of the universe but also a part of God. That is the Hindu/Buddhist view. Actually these philosophies hold that the material universe is an illusion, and that would solve every issue.

    • The Seeker
      The Seeker 12 hours ago

      @Willy Kling If the creator is inside our universe, then it doesn’t solve anything at all based on how our universe works. But the creator is outside our universe, then I think it is possible that the creator is eternal and beyond time. Everything we know about our universe, like the time, space, matter, the law of physics, the cause and effect, and everything that makes our universe works, might not apply or affect the creator. After all, the creator is outside our universe and is the one that created our universe. How our universe works doesn’t mean it is how the creator’s domain works.
      That’s why we cannot just based on our knowledge about our universe to try to understand the creator. Let’s imagine, if we draw a dot (representing a being) in a 2 dimensional world, then this being will never know the concept of up and down like we do in our 3 dimensional world. Because this being only able to move left, right, forward and backward in its 2D universe.

    • Willy Kling
      Willy Kling 14 hours ago

      @The Seeker Who created the creator, and if he created himself, how did he first came up with the idea if he did not yet exist?
      You don't solve anything by postulating an external creator.

    • The Seeker
      The Seeker 17 hours ago

      Yup, if our universe is eternal, then what caused our eternal universe into existence? Because the cause and effect is how our universe works. Every effect in our universe must have a cause. That’s why the only logical way about the origin of our universe I could think of is that a creator must be outside our universe and created our universe. Because after all, how can a creator, who is inside our universe, created our universe when our universe has not been created in the first place, right?

  • Jose Castro
    Jose Castro Day ago

    Where did the singularity come from? Where did the energy/time to get the universe started develop? The space where the universe expanded into, where did that come from? We are able to describe the start, understand the present, and are able to conclude what the future of our universe is going to be. What about the BEFORE? We can never study the before because any experiment will be done in existence, thus corrupting the outcome. You would need to leave time and space to have a clean slate to do your experiment.

  • OnitsukaTiger82
    OnitsukaTiger82 Day ago

    I can't understand a fucking thing this guy's talking about. Dumb it down.

  • Pan Darius Kairos

    You can never get rid of the Singularity.

  • Doug G
    Doug G Day ago

    How does a group of waves of potentiality tell me all this in a video?

  • Aleksander Stensen

    My crazy guess; when black holes have eaten a few hundred billion galaxies they will a some point through yet unknown physics collapse into a hot rapidly expanding gas (big bang) of hydrogen and helium. This happens all the time around us, but at distances and time scales we can not see yet. The bubbles of big bangs surrounding our big bang pulls on eachother causing our "universe" to expand faster. The extremely violent explotions of black holes vipes out everything in a very huge radius thus making life "short" lived and extremely rare.

  • Brian Spangler
    Brian Spangler 2 days ago

    Time is a human concept. There’s no such thing. Only a long and unending chain of events.

  • Resty Moreno Lising
    Resty Moreno Lising 4 days ago +1

    i understand english, but i dont understand what he's talking about

  • Андрей Полевиков

    Explanation of the Universe.
    The space of three dimensions arose from the space with zero number of dimensions. Three dimensions are cracks in zero space that can change their length. They are connected in the center between themselves and rotate around the center of the connection. If you look at them from three-dimensional space. The rotation of such a cell of space is time! The size of such a quantum or atom of space is 1/c2. In the universe of such quanta of space about 10-130 degree units. Time at the beginning of the birth of the universe at first went slowly, and time then began to accelerate. This acceleration determines the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. See here for more details.

    ru.calameo.com/read/0033783564a96e15b646e

  • Kyle Zappi
    Kyle Zappi 4 days ago

    This cool

  • John Constantine
    John Constantine 4 days ago

    So did it or not tho. Tldr??

  • David Kelly
    David Kelly 4 days ago

    At every point in time, there's a past, present, and future. To say there was no time before the big bang would also suggest that there was no past. Also, basing present-day ideas solely on Einstein's theories cuts short our potential for growth. It's like saying, "We don't have to figure anything out, because Einstein did 75 years ago."

  • Ghost Noodle
    Ghost Noodle 4 days ago +1

    You finally explained space-time in a way I understand.

    • grindupBaker
      grindupBaker 2 days ago

      There's a 3-dimensional version of this talk if you're tired of watching it in the old 2 dimensions that we're all familiar with.

  • Jesse Galloway
    Jesse Galloway 5 days ago

    your mum started at the big bang

  • Ronald Gideon
    Ronald Gideon 5 days ago

    No, In order for the big bang to have happened time would have needed to begin existence. There had to be real estate for the big bang to occur. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for the big bang to come into existence according to the theory of the big bang.

  • Drew Berry
    Drew Berry 5 days ago

    What if it started when a program on a high tech computer started up and we are living in a simulation.

  • Aaron Fuller
    Aaron Fuller 5 days ago

    To some up.. we don’t know much but we have some theories based on some bad ass mathematical equations, that are based on theories, that come to prove or disprove other, theories... man I’m in the wrong line of work!

  • Dougie Fuoco
    Dougie Fuoco 5 days ago

    In the same way time does not end at the black holes I seriously doubt time started at the big bang. As the singularity suggests we obviously have the math wrong and should start over. What if instead of beggining time we end up outside of an event Horizon of an other black hole? We seriously might be living inside one. Is that not what GR suggests?

  • Ms Monir
    Ms Monir 6 days ago

    Amazing!!!!

  • Miguel Silveiro
    Miguel Silveiro 6 days ago

    Idk when time started but I know when it stopped


    ZA WARUDO

  • gradpa dave
    gradpa dave 6 days ago

    Practily; that seems to be the key word here everything is hype. but not any proof, science wow, we always need more info and there is never enough!

  • Imran Shishir
    Imran Shishir 6 days ago +1

    I think my brain just underwent a bid bang.

  • Slotzoffun
    Slotzoffun 6 days ago +4

    Did time start at the bing bang?
    Science: Well maybe but actually maybe

  • Richard bunt
    Richard bunt 6 days ago

    Why would the big bang be. When. We can't hear it why.Why It.s gravity waves. To be

  • Kevin Honesh
    Kevin Honesh 6 days ago

    At the big bang singularity I believe that were no space,there was nothinngness.

  • OmnissiahZelos
    OmnissiahZelos 6 days ago

    I am disappointed that you went like your listeners are creationists

  • Will
    Will 8 days ago +1

    Hi. Thick Newtonian person here. I cant get my head around expansion. If the universe is expanding then is the space between particles also expanding? Or do the forces within resist the expansion?

  • Ernesto Carlos Rodríguez Argüello

    Its my third time a watch it... still lost ...going for 4

  • TeaParty1776
    TeaParty1776 8 days ago

    A hundred years ago we discovered that using a false metaphysics to understand math produces a pseudo-scientific restatement of the ancient religious claim that that God created the universe. Pythagoras said that justice is seven. He also warned against beans because they cause farting. One out of two is not bad.

  • TeaParty1776
    TeaParty1776 8 days ago

    Space and time, as Aristotle discovered w/philosophy, are relationships among things in the universe.

  • TeaParty1776
    TeaParty1776 8 days ago

    With philosophy, Aristotle identified the eternity of the universe. Some facts are too big for mere science.

  • Phillip Otey
    Phillip Otey 9 days ago +1

    What if particles are just shrinking because they're losing energy?

  • Empathy is only human
    Empathy is only human 10 days ago

    Is there exigent a theory for something akin to a black hole or singularity nova? To explain this we need to make the following assumptions. One, the 'center' of a black hole is not a mathematical singularity but rather something very similar to a neutron star. Indeed, under this model the smallest of black holes that form naturally would be simply a normal neutron star that has grown to a point where light can no longer escape it's gravitational pull. As this object continues to grow, though some mechanism that will not be addressed here, this object would then transition into a smaller object where in the neutrons consist not of up and down quarks, but of charm and strange quarks. Similarly at some much larger mass a transition would occur converting our object into one comprised of top/bottom neutrons.

    So why would there be a transition? At minimum/maximum curvature of spacetime the higher energy level quarks would become manifest due to overtaking their lower energy counterparts in terms of stability. During such a transition, volume would be greatly reduced while maintaining mass. Eventually however the mass of our object would reach a critical level. A point where top/bottom quarks begin to again destabilize but lack a higher energy counterpart into which to transition. At this point the amount of spacetime curvature would be so extreme that gravity would be approximately equal to the forces produced at the point of impact in a particle accelerator. As we approach this point small variations in the outward pressure exerted by it's constituent quarks would allow some neutrons to naturally superimpose. Thus triggering premature matter degeneration. To put this another way all mass in this twinned particle overlap would then be expressed as energy. And due to the nature of the local environment the type of energy expressed most I think would be heat.

    These transitions would slow our objects progression toward it's ultimate critical mass. But inflict an escalating level heat at and around the core. Allow this process to continue long enough and another type of critical level might be reached. The core may reach a temperature so hot that matter can no longer exist. At this point all bets are off as our tragically doom object collapses at an incredible rate carrying everything down to the smallest of possible measurements. A sphere with a one plank diameter. A true singularity comprised of only energy with no mass.

    Well what would happen then? First given the volume of this all temperature would be equalized. Space would suddenly no longer feel the pull of mass that had so severely warped its shape into so small a point. Space would be carried outward pulled by the adjoining space as it attempts to equalize its own internal pressures. The heat and other types of manifest energy is carried outward with this sudden expansion. And so we have the event we call the big bang.

    This is an interesting idea that I've been thinking on for many years now. It offers us not only a possible mechanism for how the big bang might have formed. But also an answer to what dark energy is comprised. Imagine if you will, that spacetime is expanding far faster than the effects we measure from the motion of galaxies moving away from one another. As spacetime washes over each galaxy it's is compressed and then decompresses as it moves through. This then giving rise to a kind of drag on spacetime that we can observe via the acceleration in the universal expansion. The inflationary period via this model is also very easily explained. Unhindered by the presence of mass, spacetime seems to explode outwards at far greater than the speed of light, carrying all that energy with it. Not in a kind of soap bubble but rather more akin to a sponge that is no longer compressed. Inflation stops once matter begins to form at the point where space is cool enough to allow it's coagulation. Thus a renewed compression/spacetime curvature became exigent.

    This would bring us to the natural question of, well why didn't everything just recollapse right then? And I think the most likely candidate to answer this would be spatial inertia. Additionally since matter/antimatter is being formed and systematically destroyed in it's creation cycle the amount of mass in any such system would necessarily be lower than the amount a mass in the original object. After all you have to account for all the heat and light that exists during this time. We can see the end result of this in what we call the universal microwave background radiation map.

    Lastly we come to the only scientific point of which I am aware that would counteract this model which is Stephen Hawking's calculations that point to time beginning at the big bang. What if, all the calculations are correct, but it means something that is subtly different than what we think it means? What if instead of the big bang being the beginning of time itself, the big bang was instead the beginning of the arrow of time. This leads into another idea of mine. What if the arrow of time acts in a way very similarly to that of the electromagnetic force. Move a conductive wire inside a magnetic field and you produce an electric field. Similarly what if the flow of spacetime past celestial bodies above, at, or near to the speed of light produces an effect akin to electricity flow. That being the monodirectional expression of time.

    Could someone either explain why this model is wrong, or point me to literature that can show the same. If that is not possible then I ask why don't we think that this is what happend?

    • TeaParty1776
      TeaParty1776 8 days ago

      > exigent
      Wow! You must read a lot of books.

  • EASYTIGER10
    EASYTIGER10 10 days ago

    I'm still not clear why it is assumed that BOTH matter and SPACE were concentrated in this infinitesimal space. Why could it not simply be that all matter expanded into a pre-existing void?

  • HowdeeTMM
    HowdeeTMM 10 days ago +1

    I hit play that's when time started.

  • Paulkeith Charlesworth

    But it is a theory and a fucking good one

  • dom crocitto
    dom crocitto 10 days ago

    Time started with God

  • Gerard Miller
    Gerard Miller 10 days ago

    No no; the universe was always hear. This world was once a piece of the sun.
    The big bang was a solar flare.
    An explosion in the sun ejected this rock, we call home. And way back a billion years ago. When this rock was ejected, it was still molten lava. As it cooled, as it traveled triugh space.
    It cooled off. And eventually water waper was formed. In a few million years after this rock was ejected from the sun it slowly turned and water waper formed. Water waper cooled the cracks, and eventually water became lakes. In time water became oceans as this world slowly stopped. That's how you hot this world.
    Eventually life was creating around. In the water. And the word was extremely hot still . Water wapor cooled things down.

  • Lumpag
    Lumpag 10 days ago

    This shit is so deep I can already see the 14 year olds in the comments.

  • SandBoy Null
    SandBoy Null 10 days ago

    I’m gonna have a panic attack.

  • Paul Swensen
    Paul Swensen 11 days ago

    What is the music playing at the end of the episode and where can I get it?

  • Wilfred Torres
    Wilfred Torres 12 days ago

    tvclip.biz/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/video.html there was no big bang

  • Marlo H
    Marlo H 13 days ago +1

    THE UNIVERSE IS FLAT! NASA USES LAZER BEAMS TO MAKE IT LOOK ROUND!!

  • Life's truths
    Life's truths 13 days ago

    I was just given to know this. The Universe is not infinite because of the true nature of reality. Still it's potential is Infinite.

  • Steve Magruder
    Steve Magruder 13 days ago

    This is purely in the realm of hypothesis, but I imagine our universe is the result of the long death of another one. The inexplicable physics of that universe formed an unimaginably large black hole, and the beginning of ours started from the end of its gravity well (that infinitesimally small point). It had a gravity so intense it not only ate light, it ate a lot of its spacetime as well (since as we know, mass warps spacetime). Then, the Big Bang is kind of a cosmic "appendix bursting" of that black hole, again via inexplicable physics.

  • Chris Ziga
    Chris Ziga 13 days ago

    Nah time is always constant you can not control time or fast foward it

  • James Oconnor
    James Oconnor 13 days ago

    The year O = 0
    "No matter" who ? tvclip.biz/video/0d5eP0wWLQY/video.html

  • Rell-J
    Rell-J 14 days ago

    Something came from nothing.
    Which means that nothing is actually something. Now what is it? Humans don’t know, can’t know ,and won’t ever know.
    With that being said the Big Bang just doesn’t haven’t without something already being present therefor time already existed obviously

  • necromancer
    necromancer 16 days ago

    I'm still not able to conclude whether time started with big bang or not.

  • lostbuffalo
    lostbuffalo 16 days ago

    Speed of light
    We have a measured speed of light of approximately 186 thousand miles per second
    We also have two other speeds of light you are not aware of.
    They are beyond measure yet they have value
    zero and the speed of now
    All that exists at the moment of the big bang is light+space and the absolute void the singularity exists within.
    The singularity at the big bang is light at speed zero, light does not move beyond the point of A
    The point of B does not exist as a point
    the ether is also a creation of the big bang.
    An ether expanding within an absolute void
    At the singularity were both light and space existing both within a single point and neither having any speed of movement
    the energy of the light was contained by the impedance of space otherwise light would have moved at instantaneous speed across the void and nothing would exist...
    All things being created from the interaction between space and light
    The speed of light through space from point A to point B is 186k miles per second
    The ultimate speed of light is now, it moves from point a to point b instantly
    With three speeds for light 2 intuited and 1 observed, you can calculate the impedance of space on light.
    knowing the impedance of space on light you can create new matter, consume matter for energy or extract energy from space itself.
    You could even move between 2 points faster than the speed of light.
    Unfortunately you cannot time travel because time does not actually exist

  • lostbuffalo
    lostbuffalo 16 days ago

    Infinity is a word that means not measurable, or beyond measure.
    it is also used to say something is without value or beyond having a value
    to measure something you need to correlate it with something you know, like how you hold a ruler to line to measure the line.
    singularity is infinite in there not being a way to measure it
    But it is not infinite in the sense of having value
    Singularity is a value in itself just as zero has value on a number line.

  • lostbuffalo
    lostbuffalo 16 days ago

    Time is merely a mental construct the mind employs to differentiate between memory (past) experience (present) and intuition (future)
    There is no evidence that time exists as a force of nature
    Your mental construct is correlated with the world outside your mind creating the illusion of time.
    Modelling change, or cause and effect moving through time is a useful way of organizing your observations but it is an illusory mental crutch.
    cause and effect or change do not actually move through time
    your perception of change moves through your concept of time within your mind
    Time does not actually exist.
    The scientific error here is a rational inability to discern between reality and concept.

  • vince pie
    vince pie 17 days ago +1

    No, there were surely causal sequences of events before hand that resulted in the big bang, we just have no idea for sure what any of it was or could be.

  • Jack251190
    Jack251190 17 days ago

    Time started when matter or rather energy came into existence. Why? Think about how we measure time. It is the change of state or location of matter. Without matter, time means nothing.

  • AssmasterFlex69
    AssmasterFlex69 18 days ago

    gourd mad duh univarse n duh urf iz flatt, stoopid afiests

  • Mark R
    Mark R 20 days ago

    how do you measure and track a point in space in time? like, how can you compare the distance of two points in this moment and then the next moment? what even is a point? a quark? or the 'fabric' that the quark exists on? if comparison requires delineation, what is being compared?