Stuff You Should Know - How Big Bang Theory Works, with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Episode Date: April 14, 2016

There are a number of theories for how the universe evolved but none are more widely accepted than the Big Bang theory. Learn about the mind-boggling details of the early universe and hear Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about what it will take for us to know its origins. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the podcast, Hey Dude, the 90s called, David Lasher and Christine Taylor, stars of the cult classic show, Hey Dude, bring you back to the days of slip dresses and choker necklaces. We're gonna use Hey Dude as our jumping off point, but we are going to unpack and dive back into the decade of the 90s.

We lived it, and now we're calling on all of our friends to come back and relive it. Listen to Hey Dude, the 90s called on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new iHeart podcast, Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. Do you ever think to yourself, what advice would Lance Bass

and my favorite boy bands give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place because I'm here to help. And a different hot, sexy teen crush boy bander each week to guide you through life. Tell everybody, ya everybody, about my new podcast and make sure to listen so we'll never, ever have to say. Bye, bye, bye.

Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, from HowStuffWorks.com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Chipper Josh Clark. There's Chipper Charles Bryant.

Oh, that's your new nickname. Chipper Charles. Yep. Eesh. Yeah, and then there's Jerry. She's not Chipper. She is actually Chipper. I'm not Chipper.

I'm grumpy because this stuff. I know. Man, oh man, my head is already melted. You guys should see the vein in Chuck's forehead. It is protruding. We do our best. Of course. Dude, we're not astrophysicists,

but we do have an astrophysicist coming on as a guest at the end of the episode, don't we? Yes, my friend, you interviewed Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, or as I like to call him, NDT. Sure, that's what I call him, too. NDT, he's dynamite. Yeah, but I was unable to be on the interview for various tooth-related reasons.

So you took it upon yourself. And I think an interview like that is probably just better for one person anyway. It gets a little clumsy. It's two people that don't know anything about astrophysics are trying to glean information. Here's my question. Yeah.

Would you eat for breakfast? Doctor. But yeah, it was very kind of him to come on and we want to thank our friends at the Fox Theater, where he's going to be on April 20th here in Atlanta for hooking that up. So thanks to everybody who made that happen, because it's a great interview,

as you guys will hear at the end of this episode. Yeah, I loved listening to it, and I'm gonna go ahead and say my two favorite parts are probably one that won't make it in when you said that you're happy to plug the Fox Theater show, and he was like, don't bother, it's gonna be sold out. Yeah, I like that, too.

And then at the end, when you thanked him for advancing our understanding of this light years, and he was like, that's not nearly enough. Yeah. He's like, a light year is not very far, thanks. Yeah, so I changed it to parsecs, he's like, you're getting closer. I know, it was very funny, actually.

I hope you leave that part in there. I hope so, and later on, I immediately were good at not saying, well, you advanced our show billions and billions of light years. He would've appreciated that. Yeah, he would've, and I didn't do it. Yeah. I wasn't sharp enough.

It was a good interview, though, so thanks. Feel free to skip right ahead to that. Well, we'll lay here and go to sleep. So we're talking about the Big Bang Theory, and not the TV show, so Settle Down Nerds. I think he was on that show, though, wasn't he? I'm sure, yeah. Sure, yeah, he made an appearance.

I think all you have to do is say like, you will further science if you appear on this, he's like, I'll do it. Yeah, I've never seen one episode of that show. I guess I've maybe seen some here and there. It's, I think, literally the most popular show in the world. Or it was like last season or the season before, like it's just taken off like a rocket.

And hats off to them, too, because they like, mix actual science and science jokes and all that stuff. It's like smartening up the world. Well, I'll tell you one quote I got from Mr. Tyson, Dr. Tyson, from the internet. And it was, I actually heard him say it, so I know it was a real quote. He said that people asked,

do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? And only the way that he can, he was like, well, it's not a matter of believing. He said, I only believe in things that are evidence-based. And he said, the question should be that you posit to people. Of all the data and evidence out there, what theory is best supported?

And he said it's the Big Bang Theory. Sure, right. And our colleague, Jonathan Strickland, who wrote the article that this is based on, and kudos to that cat, because he took some really, really difficult concepts and explained it really well. Yeah, he explained it in a way that I came close

to understanding at times. But he makes that same point too, that not only is the Big Bang Theory a theory, which obviously cannot be proven, can only be disproven, but that there are other competing theories out there too, which we'll talk about later. Sure. But that for the most part,

it has the most observational evidence backing it up, including the recent confirmation of gravitational waves, which made a huge stir. And that as a result, it's the most widely subscribed to theory among scientists, as describing the early universe. And that's a big thing. There's a big distinction about that.

A lot of people think that the Big Bang describes the formation of the universe. Not true. No, the Big Bang describes the time starting very soon after the universe formed, but it does not go back into where the origin of the universe came from, what came before it, and it actually doesn't even go all the way back

to that point where everything started. It just can't, because science falls apart as we'll see the further you try to go back in time, because time ceases to exist at that point. Yeah, if the universe were a human being, it's the Big Bang theory sort of describes the point where the sperm and the egg meet up. It describes the time a trillionth of a trillionth

of a second after they met up. What about that? Yeah, which is, you know. It's close to, it's a pretty great time. It is. So another misconception, Chuck, is that the Big Bang was an explosion. That's not correct.

No, in fact, a man named Sir Fred Hoyle was the one who gave it a name almost, well not almost, he gave it to it in jest as sort of an insult, because he was a believer, I don't know if he always was, but he was a believer at the time in the steady state theory, and it was like, yeah, it was explosion, this Big Bang,

but it's not an explosion at all. So Chuck, it's a rapid expansion. It was, and the best way to think of it is like this. So like an explosion, let's say you have a planet, and that planet is actually the universe, and it's just floating there in space, and Darth Vader shoots it with the Death Star, and it goes, right, and it goes everywhere,

starts scattering everywhere, but it's scattering within the boundaries, the confines of spaces, we understand it. That would be the popular conception of what the Big Bang represents, not at all. What the Big Bang actually says is that space itself inflated, it expanded, and that all the stuff that was in it

was in this very tightly wound, dense, incredibly hot core that was a singularity, basically, that expanded into the universe that's as big as we understand it now. Yeah, something that was so tiny and hot it had an infinite amount of density, because everything we know was crammed in. You know what it's like?

It's like, if Neil deGrasse Tyson listens to this, he's going to love this. Okay. You know the little pellets that you would get with your fireworks, a little black pellet, and then you light it. A smoke snake. And then it snakes out to several feet.

Right. That's like it, except if that pellet were, like, thousands and thousands and thousands of fraction of the size of a head of a pin. Right. I think that's a great analogy. And I'm just gonna leave the room, and I'll come back in 40 minutes.

But even still, Chuck, take that analogy, right? When you imagine that, you imagine that snake growing on a sidewalk, and maybe there's kind of grass in your view, and it's at night, and there's a car park there because you're outside, right? Well, sure. That's where our brain wants to take us. Yeah.

We want to confine what we know within the boundaries of our universe. What we're talking about is the universe itself growing. Yeah. And expanding in nothingness. Yeah, and he points out in the interview, I don't want to spoil it, but he kind of blows my mind when he starts talking about, like,

this goes beyond what our human senses can understand. Right. Sight and sound, like, forget about it. Yeah, and that's how nobody's gonna be able to pin anything on us, because we'll be like, well, we just can't comprehend that, so how could you blame us for getting it wrong? Yeah.

So, Chuck. Now I'm gonna leave the room. Okay. And you need what, a half an hour? It may take a little longer than that. No, I get parts of it, so I'll just try and then when I feel confident. There's a line, right, that Strickland had in here.

It was, he says that the earliest moments of the Big Bang, all of the matter, energy, and space we could observe was compressed to an area of zero volume and infinite density. Doesn't that sound like the line from a religious text or something like that? Yeah. Isn't it just, like, right there on that border

between, like, science and religion, basically? Yeah, like, and now take this drug, and everyone take their clothes off and follow me. Right, exactly. And we'll understand what I'm talking about. Yeah, and you know what, when Strickland and scientists and cosmologists talk about that, that is what is known as a singularity.

Right. That thing with zero volume and infinite density. Right. So, I think it bears repeating at least one more time. What we're talking about is all of the matter, all of the energy, all of the heat, all the radiation, everything in the universe that is here or ever was here over the last 13 point,

roughly seven to nine billion years. Yeah. Was in a point that was 23 orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of an atom. You almost, you just caught yourself going to say it's like a little ball, but there's not even circularism. Right, yeah. Is that a word?

Yes. There was nothing circular. And so, at this time, at this point, we know that it was very, very hot. Sure, makes sense. But mind-bogglingly hot, like you can't even think of all the zeros associated with the degrees of Kelvin or Fahrenheit or Celsius, right?

Right. And it was incredibly dense. And then something happened, we don't know what that was. Science simply isn't equipped to explain it or understand it or detect it. Right. Something happened to make this incredibly dense ball or whatever it was.

Yeah, there was no ball. Expand. Yes, and it was not like the smoke snake. It wasn't a child with a lighter. You don't know that? Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't know that? Nobody knows that. So, this expanding happened really, really, really fast.

And we'll talk later about just those first few seconds afterward, like that's how fast we're talking. Well, few trillions of a second is how they break it down. Like, this so much happened in that first, literally the first second of the origin of the universe, that there are different ages and epochs that happened in trillions of a second. Yeah, it's really mind-blowing.

So, as things expanded, though, in those first few seconds, and today, things are still expanding, things are expanding and things are cooling down, even as we speak. Literally every second that we're on the earth, we're expanding and, well, not us, but the universe is expanding and cooling.

Right, exactly. And as a matter of fact, from what I understand, our region of the universe, which is something like 90 billion light years across, is no longer expanding, but other parts of the universe are expanding. Right.

And there's this really great article about cosmology and where it stands right now. It's in Aeon. Not cosmetology. No, cosmology. Yes. And it was written by a guy named Ross Anderson, and I think it's called In the Beginning,

and it's incredibly well-written, but he makes a really great analogy. He says that that 90 billion light year across portion of the universe that we inhabit, that we consider our own, is but a small section of one tiny bubble that floats along on a frothy sea whose proportions defy comprehension.

Isn't that neat? Yeah. And that's just our section of the universe, right? That's our little neighborhood. So the universe is unknowably large. We sound like H.P. Lovecraft here describing this stuff. Yeah. And still some parts of it are expanding.

And apparently in the early universe, when it was a singularity, the four forces, the four fundamental forces. The dark side, the, oh wait. Yeah. I thought you were going, I thought you meant the Star Wars universe. Yeah, I was.

Oh, okay. Yeah. So the force, the dark side, midichlorians. And Mark Hamill's hair. Yeah, prequels. The four basic forces, as everyone knows, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity.

Right, and that singularity before the universe expanded, began to expand, all of them were coupled together into a single unified force. Yeah, which we don't understand how. No, we don't. And as a matter of fact, trying to get them back together is one of the great pursuits of physics.

Because if we can figure out how they were all unified, we can start to understand the science we need, the paradigm we need to understand the origins of the universe. But we just can't figure out how to do it, right? Yeah, one thing that kind of blows my mind with this is when we get to the stuff later on about, does it defy other laws of physics and stuff?

Like basically every answer is like, the further you travel back toward that singularity, the less all these rules that we think we understand apply. Right, it falls apart. Yeah, so just, you know, we'll probably never understand this stuff. Yeah. You know, that very singular moment.

Yeah, I don't know, I disagree. I think I disagree, yeah. I think that we are maybe a century or two away from understanding it. Well, you just clearly pulled that out of your hat. Well, I totally did. Oh, okay. We've made another 126 years.

Well, no, we've made some incredibly huge strides in the last like 150, 200 years in our understanding thus far, right? So I think that's not a bad guess, right? So it'd be a string theorist, right? To marry all these, I don't know. Probably. I don't know, and that's what NDT said.

That's what we call them now. That's what he said. He was like, who knows, it could be string theory. Maybe someone will be able to come up with a unified theory, or what's called a theory of everything that unifies the four fundamental forces back into their single version of a force.

Man. Or maybe we just don't understand quantum physics enough quite yet. Yeah. And when we figure that out a little more, that will unlock some keys for us. Unbelievable. So Chuck, before we get into how we started

to come to understand the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, let's take a break real quick, all right? I'm gonna go wipe my brow. You're doing great. That was... I don't know if that was not a good idea. Let's go.

I don't know if I really have enough time. Were gonna just do it a little bit longer and get along now. I have it all mixed up. Your answer wouldn't be wrong. I mean, I think the world is always trying to avec me and make me happy. You're such a striker, and I'll stay dry all day.

You're so beautiful. And I thought all of you were pretty funny. All you had to do was watch me make videos of that sort for me. back into the decade of the 90s. We lived it, and now we're calling on all of our friends to come back and relive it. It's a podcast packed with interviews,

co-stars, friends, and non-stop references to the best decade ever. Do you remember going to Blockbuster? Do you remember Nintendo 64? Do you remember getting Frosted Tips? Was that a cereal? No, it was hair. Do you remember AOL Instant Messenger

and the dial-up sound like poltergeist? So leave a code on your best friend's beeper, because you'll want to be there when the nostalgia starts flowing. Each episode will rival the feeling of taking out the cartridge from your Game Boy, blowing on it and popping it back in as we take you back to the 90s.

Listen to, Hey Dude, the 90s, called on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new iHeart podcast, Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. The hardest thing can be knowing who to turn to when questions arise or times get tough, or you're at the end of the road.

Ah, okay, I see what you're doing. Do you ever think to yourself, what advice would Lance Bass and my favorite boy bands give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place, because I'm here to help. This, I promise you. Oh, God.

Seriously, I swear. And you won't have to send an SOS, because I'll be there for you. Oh, man. And so, my husband, Michael. Um, hey, that's me. Yep, we know that, Michael. And a different hot, sexy, teen crush boy bander

each week to guide you through life, step by step. Oh, not another one. Kids, relationships, life in general can get messy. You may be thinking, this is the story of my life. Just stop now. If so, tell everybody, yeah, everybody, about my new podcast and make sure to listen, so we'll never, ever have to say, bye, bye, bye.

Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Learning stuff with Joshua and Charles, stuff you should know. All right, I sort of get this part, so. The history part? I'm gonna talk a little bit about it.

And this makes a lot of sense to me. Go back in time. Let's get in the way of that machine. Oh, yes, let's. Boy, this feels so safe and comfortable in here. I know. It stinks of kerosene. It does, weirdly.

It's 1800s, and astronomers started using something called a spectroscope, which is pretty nifty. We've talked about light waves in here before. A spectroscope is something that divides that light spectrum up into the wavelengths. Blue on the left, red on the right, and as you go further toward the red,

the wavelengths grow longer. So that's part one. Right, right. That was spectroscopes. Yes, that's light waves. Right, and around the same time, a guy named Christian Doppler was tinkering with the frequency of sound waves, right? He was studying those.

Because he's a smart guy. He is. And he said, you know what? It's weird that when I sit by a train, it sounds different as it goes by me, approaches, then goes by me and goes further away from me. Right, it sounds different, and that doesn't really make any sense.

Yeah, and whereas most people would just eat their figgy pudding and go about their day, he wanted to try and explain it. He was like, anybody else would have been like, this new Charles Dickens book is top notch. So he said, you know what? As this noise approaches you, the sound waves it generates compress,

it's gonna change that frequency, or at least how you perceive it in a different pitch. So as it moves away from you, those waves are gonna stretch, that pitch goes down, and I'm gonna name this effect after myself. Right, well, I'll let my wife do it. So I don't look like a jerk. Right, so basically you marry these two things, light,

wavelengths, and the Doppler effect, and it sort of led us down this path to where we could understand the Big Bang Theory. Right, it would indicate that something that was emitting light out there in the universe whose light moved toward the red end of the spectrum would be emitting longer wavelengths, which would suggest, based on Christian Doppler's findings,

that it was moving away, right? Yeah, and they found that. They said, look at these stars. Some of the light is falling into this right-hand side, and does that mean it's moving away and it's getting faster? Right, and that was... It wants to get away from us.

That's where Edwin Hubble came in. He basically said, yeah, this is really weird, guys, because some of these stars appear to have a velocity that's proportional to its distance from the Earth. Like, there seems to be some sort of rhyme or reason here to it. And it's suggested to Hubble, and later on to everybody else, including Einstein, as we'll see,

that the universe itself was expanding. And this is where we came to the genuine origin of the Big Bang Theory, the idea that the universe was expanding. And just... At a constant rate, too, right? Yes. Is that the idea?

Is that the Hubble constant? No, no, no. The Hubble constant is the proportion between, or the relationship between, how fast something is moving away from us to its distance from us. Well, yeah, I guess it is the constant rate. I mean...

And actually, no, the universe appears to be expanding more quickly than it was before. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so it's increasing, which is... That's what I meant, but it is constant in its relationship. Yeah, the Hubble constant has to do not necessarily

with the inflation of the universe itself, for the expansion of the universe itself, but how fast, say, a star is moving away from us. And the further away from us it is, it appears to be moving faster than others that are closer. Yeah, and we should point out, you said inflation and or expansion,

and apparently, if you're an insider, if you're a scientist, you probably say inflation. Sure, so expansion is the basis of the Big Bang Theory. It's the idea that the universe has expanded over time, so that by logic, since time is one of the four dimensions that we live in, right? You've got the three dimensions plus time, so therefore, space-time describes the fabric of the universe

and the reality we live in, right? That's right. So by logic of that, if you went backward in time, the universe would be smaller and smaller and smaller, and the more they started looking into it, the more their mind started popping as they realized, like, wow, this thing was really, really small once, and that's the basis of it.

Inflation theory comes in and suggests how that happened, how that expansion happened, and it fills in a lot of blanks that we'll also talk about. Yes, you mentioned Einstein earlier. He's a noted smart guy, and he actually had some issues because it conflicted somewhat with his general relativity theories,

because he subscribed to his own theory that the universe was static, it's not expanding. Right, and I think he was a member of, there's a way of viewing the universe that it was always this way, it was always spread out this way, it wasn't getting bigger, that's nuts, and so he figured that his general theory of relativity

would prove this, and actually, he was extremely surprised to find that his own general theory of relativity actually said, no, the universe is either expanding or contracting, it's certainly not steady, and then Edwin Hubble came along and he had his findings, and Einstein said, you know what, I was wrong.

Yeah, I'm a big enough man to admit it. Yeah, that's the kind of guy I am. And one day, people are gonna keep my brain in a jar in a barn. Slice it up, it's gonna go on a car trip. That was a good episode we did too. Yeah, did we do one on that? Oh yeah.

On its own? Einstein's brain. Oh yeah, that's right, boy, those were the good old days. Einstein's brain episodes. Sure. Yeah. All right, so let's talk about some of the predictions that rose from the theory that the universe is expanding.

One is, and Strickland says, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, which is a fancy way of saying, it's made up of the same materials in completely uniform. Yeah, here is one of the first times we run into something where you're like, what are you talking about? It's funny, if you read Strickland's article,

and I sent him an email saying as much, that I was like, this is really well written, but if you just read the words you're saying, it sounds like it was written by someone who is totally insane. Yeah. You know? I know.

And he makes the point too, he's like, well yeah, all you have to do is look out into the Milky Way or anything like that, anything we can see easily and see that it looks different. Like there's not a star that looks just like our sun with the same number of planets looking around. Right. The point is that you look,

if you go out of several orders of magnification and look at the universe outside of any given galaxy, you're gonna see that actually, yeah, everything's distributed pretty evenly throughout the universe. And so that makes it homogenous. And then secondly, it's isotropic, meaning that there is no center to the universe.

There's no central point. Yeah, which some people posit that the Earth is the center of the universe. Well, we'll talk a little bit about that later. Okay. But that's wrong, right? I mean, it hasn't been disproven, but it's just extremely unlikely, I think.

Yeah, I think it's a very human-centric thing to say. But the reason why some people say that is that they are, if you look around, that expansion that we're seeing, is everything's going away from us, which is like, why is that happening? We should be going along, at least with something else. But the idea is that we're not

because we're the center of the universe, but the implications of that are so mind-boggling that it's just not possible, almost. That we're actually at the center of the universe when we're just this small segment of a tiny bubble in a frothy sea that defies proportions. There's no way that's the center of the universe. So another prediction was,

and we talked a little bit about the intense heat at the very first moments of the Big Bang. And if that were true, then you would feel and see this radiation, I guess not see it, but you would have this radiation expanded over the entire galaxy in roughly equal proportions. Yeah, because again, remember, the universe is homogenous and isotropic,

so if there was radiation, it should be evenly distributed. Yeah, they call it an echo I've seen described in some circles. Makes sense. Right, okay, so apparently back in the 40s, they detected this stuff and didn't know what they were looking at. And in the 60s, they figured out, holy cow, this is the cosmic microwave background,

which is basically, I think of it as more like a fingerprint, the fingerprints of the universe, right? Yeah. And it's evenly distributed. It's this trace radiation that's still around from the Big Bang, which is pretty amazing. So when you put that in the discovery that the universe does seem to be homogenous and isotropic, along with the fact that we discovered

this cosmic radiation background that's evenly distributed throughout the universe, it really gives a lot of credence to the Big Bang theory. And so too does this gravitational wave. Yeah. The gravitational wave discovery, they apparently found curls in the cosmic microwave background that are remnants of gravitational wave from the Big Bang too.

So it's just getting supported all over the place and everybody's super happy. Yeah, there's like real observational data there. Right. All right, we tease those first nanoseconds, nanomoments after the Big Bang. So let's talk about them right now. The earliest thing that scientists can even talk about,

like with a straight face, like later on when they're having drinks at the bar, I bet they talk about before this, but if they're like on a podium in front of an audience, they can go back as far as, I'll just say the equation, even though it will make no sense to anyone, T equals one times 10 to the negative 43 seconds.

May I? Yes. Okay. So T... Yeah. equals the time after the creation of the universe and as far back as they've gone is point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero one second after the creation of the universe. That's how far back they've been able to trace the Big Bang.

43. Nice work. Isn't that amazing? That fraction of one second is how far back they've been able to figure it out. And so much happened in that first second, Chuck, that just fractions of that fraction are like I said before, like different epochs in the era or the age of the universe. Like entire epochs happen in trillions of a trillionth of a second. It's just so mind boggling.

I know. I love it, though. Like I've really given myself over to this. I was fighting at first, like, well, that doesn't make sense. I don't want to. How does that make sense? And I did look plenty of stuff up. But I also just kind of was like, I'm just taking this on faith, despite what NDT says,

like you do kind of have to take this on faith, especially if you're not an astrophysicist. And I just kind of gave myself over to and I love it. You know what happens when my mind gets bent like that too far? I just have some pie. Oh, that's good stuff. Yeah. What kind? Stare at the wall and have some pie.

What do you recommend? It doesn't matter. Begin. Okay. So something super sweet, not fruity. What's a fruity pie? Like a cherry pie or apple pie? I like a good apple crumble pie.

Oh, yeah. I do too. I like the one with the crisscross pastry on top. I don't really discriminate against pie. Sure. I tend more toward the fruity section of the pie spectrum and I tend to think of pecan like right in the middle. Yeah.

But then on the other end, you have like your creamy and chocolate mousse pies and stuff like that. I tend to be on the other side a little more. Or a good lemon pie, lemon ice cream. Yeah, it's good stuff. What I don't get is the cheddar on the apple pie. I've never gotten that either. I've never tried it.

Maybe I should. Most people are obviously crazy. I like sweet and savory together, so maybe I should give it a whirl. Oh, yeah. Do we have to start talking about this again? Dip a French fry in a frosting. Call it a day. All right.

So at that point that you described that, you know, don't say all the zeros again. But at that point, the universe was tiny, tiny, tiny and small and dense and hot. And the area of the universe spanned a region of about 3.9 by 10 to 34 inches, everything. And that area, right, 10 to the negative 33 centimeters, again, the average diameter of an atom or roughly something like that is 10 to the negative 10. This is that much smaller than an atom and everything that's in the universe now was encapsulated in that tiny little thing, whatever it was. That's right.

And again, surely astrophysicists and cosmologists when they were coming up with these calculations were like, just can't be right. And I guess over time they were like, it seems to be right. Either we're all just totally off our rockers and really somebody forgot to carry a one and everybody forgot to carry a one or this is really how things started and it's just mind boggling to think. So in that very first, first, first, first moment theorists think that those four primary forces that we mentioned are still hanging together, they're still united and that matter

and energy were inseparable at this point. Which is another, don't feel bad if you're sitting there going like, how is that possible? No one knows. They just see, the calculations bear that out is another way to put it, you know? That's right. So it was matter and energy were one and the same. And as things expanded, we'll go into these in detail. We go through something called bariogenesis, particle cosmology, and then standard cosmology.

And as this time passes, things become a little more easy to understand. And when I say easy to understand, I mean extremely difficult, but at least your mind can wrap around it. Yeah. Start to at least, right? Yeah. So remember we started at T, which is the time after the creation of the universe. T equals one times 10 to the negative 43 seconds.

The next big part where things start, and actually in between the two, gravity separated from the four fundamental forces. Just a little thing like that. Right. But the next big one that came along was at 10 to the negative 36 seconds. And this is where bariogenesis happened. And around this time also, this is where the electro week, which is electromagnetic and weak force combined together, separated from the strong magnetic force.

And apparently here at that 10 to the negative 36 power seconds, that was where inflation happened. That's where the expansion began. Right. And that's where we actually could begin to observe some kind of matter. Yeah. And they think that what happened was a tremendous amount of matter and antimatter were created. But that, and we did it, I don't remember a lot about the details, but remember we

did a podcast on antimatter spacecraft and how amazing those were. But antimatter and matter like to destroy each other and effectively cancel one another out. But apparently at the beginning of the universe, at the origin of the universe, it's suggested by this, that there was a slight imbalance in whatever makes matter and whatever makes antimatter, so that there was a slightly more matter that was created than antimatter. Which is a good thing. So that, right.

So that that stuff survived. Yeah. Had the balance been the other direction, there'd be slightly more antimatter than matter now. And who knows what kind of loopy, bizarro universe that would have created. Seriously. You know? Or if there would have been anything at all. So all that matter that survived is the matter that we see in the universe now.

And that's a lot of matter. So imagine since this is just a tiny fraction of the matter that was created and destroyed by the antimatter that was also created, how much matter and antimatter was created at 10 to the negative 36 seconds. Through bariogenesis. Again, this is mind boggling. And that was the result, Chuck, of energy and matter uncoupling as well, right? That's right.

Okay. All right. And this is the point where we can actually start to, you know, we did one on the Large Hadron Collider. It's a particle accelerator, the biggest and best that we have on the Earth. And this is where you can actually use a particle accelerator to recreate and look at this stuff. So we can actually observe this at this point. Yeah.

We can smash things together and be like, kaboom. Look at that. Early universe. That's what they do at CERN. Oh yeah? All right. Well, people should listen to that one too, by the way. Oh yeah.

That would be a good primer. That was the one where we wondered whether it was going to end the universe or not. Right? It did not. Not yet. So at this point, there is still no light. Things are too dense and it is still just a dark, dense area. Right.

Exactly. And I think during the particle cosmology epoch, the electromagnetic force and the weak force break off into separate forces. That's right. And we still can't, at this point, these subatomic particles still can't bond. They're there. They can form. Right.

But they can't hook up and party. Right. Exactly. That actually didn't start to take place until we reached the standard cosmology age, which is the age that I believe we are in now, right? Yeah. It started 0.01 seconds after the initial bang. Right.

100th of a second. So we've gone through that many ages and we haven't even mentioned them all. No. And those within that first second. Yeah. It's crazy. It is crazy. The standard cosmology, this is about where the astrophysicists and cosmologists say we

understand it from about here on out, right? Everything else is a little shaky, but we've got some observational data that backs it up. But here is where neutrons and protons were formed and a little after that they started to be able to form nuclei through nucleosynthesis, right? And they would ultimately be the building blocks of atoms. Right. So at this point, things are still expanding and cooling at a rapid rate and we can actually, there are no atoms yet, but like you said, it's too hot at this point for electrons to

complete that process. Right. Still too hot in the hot tub. Yeah. I mean, after 100 seconds, the universe had cooled to a temperature cooled after 100 seconds to 1.8 billion degrees Fahrenheit or a billion degrees Celsius. That was how hot it was still after 100 seconds. Should we take another break here?

Let's. All right, let's do that and we'll come back and explain the rest of it in great, easy to understand detail. On the podcast, Hey Dude, the 90s called David Lasher and Christine Taylor, stars of the cult classic show, Hey Dude, bring you back to the days of slip dresses and choker necklaces. We're going to use Hey Dude as our jumping off point, but we are going to unpack and dive back into the decade of the 90s. We lived it and now we're calling on all of our friends to come back and relive it.

It's a podcast packed with interviews, co-stars, friends and nonstop references to the best decade ever. Do you remember going to blockbuster? Do you remember Nintendo 64? Do you remember getting frosted tips? Was that a cereal? No, it was hair. Do you remember AOL instant messenger and the dial-up sound like poltergeist?

So leave a code on your best friend's beeper because you'll want to be there when the nostalgia starts flowing. Each episode will rival the feeling of taking out the cartridge from your Game Boy, blowing on it and popping it back in as we take you back to the 90s. Listen to Hey Dude, the 90s called on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. I'll be there for you. And so will my husband, Michael, and a different hot sexy teen crush boy bander each week to

guide you through life step by step. Kids, relationships, life in general can get messy. You may be thinking, this is the story of my life. If so, tell everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen so we'll never ever have to say bye-bye-bye. Welcome to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Alright buddy, when we left off, things were expanding and cooling.

And they still are actually. The end. Yep. Nope. Good night everyone. And everyone here is Neil deGrasse Tyson. To take us home. So 56,000 years after the creation of the universe or after the Big Bang, we were at

a temperature of 15,740 degrees Fahrenheit. Nice and cool. Or 8726 degrees Celsius, right? After another 324,000 years, so at 380,000 years after, it had cooled down to 4,000, just under 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and just under 3,000 degrees Celsius. And finally here, atoms started to form because protons and electrons could combine. And the other thing that happened too was the density had expanded out enough. The volume head increases a better way to put it.

And the temperature had cooled so that suddenly the universe was now transparent. We could see through it. Up to this point, 379,000 years, you still couldn't see through it, it was too dense and too hot. And at about 380,000 years, it hits that point and you can see it like we do now. Yeah, we finally have light at that point. Those cosmic microwave background radiation that we talked about earlier, it's locked in.

I don't think we mentioned earlier where we're at now temperature-wise just to kind of put it in perspective. We currently are at roughly negative 454.8 degrees Fahrenheit, negative 270.4 degrees Celsius. Yeah, that's the temperature of space right now, right? Yeah. So it's definitely cooled. Apparently it's still cooling.

It's still not at absolute zero yet, which is the lowest temperature or the lowest activity that atoms will move at ever. So it's still cooling and still expanding. All right, so here's when things really heat up, or I guess really cool down, sorry, bad fun. Strickland points out for the next 100 million years or so, this is when the universe is really cooling, it's expanding, and then you have matter clusters together. Yeah, this is cool.

Eventually forms gas, and this is the quick view, we'll dive into it. Those gases form stars, those stars cluster into galaxies, those galaxies cluster together into solar systems. Right. That's the overview. And so what they think happened was, because this really doesn't make any sense, as a matter of fact, one of the criticisms of the Big Bang Theory is that it violates the law of entropy, that organizations become more disordered and chaotic over time, and the

idea that planets and galaxies and things formed, it seemed like it became more orderly. That's the opposite, right, exactly. And so they've really kind of looked into how anything would have formed at all. And what they think happened was that back in say the 10 to the negative 43 second era, there were quantum fluctuations, little vacuum energy fluctuations within this universe, this tiny little universe, and that as the universe expanded very quickly, those fluctuations grew tremendously in size. And the vacuum energy in the cosmic microwave background, those little fluctuations that

are on there, were just different enough from the other spots in the universe that they had slightly more density and thus exerted slightly more gravitational pull than other areas. And so more matter started to attract around them, and they started to form stars, and the stars started to form galaxies, and planets started to form around them. And all of a sudden, what had just started out as little vacuum energy became ultimately universal hotspots where you could find matter clustered together, which explains why so much of it is deep, of deep space is just void.

And why some of it has stuff, apparently it all began with these little tiny quantum fluctuations way back trillions of a trillions of a second after the universe was created. So like a really cool dude at a party the size of all humankind, and he's so cool that people start hanging out with him, and that his party grows a little bigger. Sure. Is that a good way to describe it? I think that's better than anybody could ever hope to. So it's an attraction, basically, that drew things together ever so slightly enough to

form larger bodies and then larger bodies. Yeah, and the reason why they think this happened is because these tiny little fluctuations, little details in this little universe, grow bigger over time, especially if you look at this inflation growing as a process of time rather than just volume expansion. It's also time is a dimension to it, right? So it makes total sense in that just these little things would get bigger as the universe itself got bigger too. Well does that mean that the universe, being coy here, does that mean the universe will

ever expand for all of time infinitely? So I mean you're talking about that debate, right? Yeah. We're going to hold the debate over whether or not it's ever going to stop, and all of it comes down to how much matters in the universe, which we don't quite know yet. When they calculate the matter we do know about, they realize that there's actually some that you can't account for, and that's dark matter, because we know that there's something that's making stars behave differently here.

There's clearly some matter that we can't detect that's out there. So we can't account for all the matter in the universe, so we don't know how much matters in the universe. Right, but the idea is that if there's enough, then that gravity will reverse and things will start to contract again, right? Right, because gravity is this force that attracts matter to other matter. And yeah, eventually if there's enough matter, it'll counteract that expansive force that came out of it, and then yeah, probably will either stop, is one school of thought, or

the universe will contract and form what's called the big crunch. And some people say that's what our universe is, it's just the cycle of expansion and contraction that takes place over many billions of years, but we're just one part of a cycle that is ongoing perhaps forever. It makes it sound, when we talk about like that, it makes it sound like the universe is just breathing. It does, doesn't it? Yeah.

In a creepy way. And Chuck, that has to do also, the reason why they don't know if it's going to keep expanding or contracting, they don't know if it's what's called a closed universe with positive curvature or one with negative curvature, right? And it also has to do with the shape of space to a certain degree. And Strickland also wrote a really top-notch article called Does Space Have a Shape? Yeah, that's a good one. It really is.

And something from studying this that they figured out is that really it doesn't seem like it has a positive or a negative curvature, it seems flat, it seems like it has a zero curvature. Right. And this is what's called the flat problem of the Big Bang Theory. Why should it be flat? That doesn't make any sense because if you look at the spectrum between positive curvature and negative curvature, there's a lot of places on that spectrum where the universe could

fall one way or the other. But it's so close to the middle that astrophysicists and cosmologists have no idea if it's positive or negative in its curvature. And they've started to wonder, like, why should we be almost exactly in the middle? That doesn't make any sense. It would suggest that the early universe was so finely tuned that we're only slightly off of center. So it would have had to have started almost completely at center because, remember, small

fluctuations grow bigger and bigger over time and on a larger scale. So since we're still so close to center right now, with the universe as big as it is, it would have had to have been basically on top of exactly in the middle between a closed or a negative and a positive curvature at the very beginning of it, which is kind of puzzling in and of itself. That's like, well, that indicates some sort of weird fine tuning. So does that mean that the astrophysicists are off a little bit in their own fine tuning of the Big Bang Theory in inflation?

Or what? Who knows? Or is there a little kid with the lighter who set the snake off? That's right. And the snake was very well manufactured. Well, that's just one thing that we can't quite explain. We talked earlier about the fact that at the very beginning that the Big Bang Theory wasn't meant to address a lot of questions.

One of which is that we touched on was what happened before the Big Bang and we just don't know. It doesn't even try. It doesn't. It can't, right? Yeah. But like trying to explain time before timing existed is futile. Right.

Because you get into stuff that I just suggested, which is basically amounts to intelligent design or whatever. And that's beyond science. Like science isn't equipped to say, oh, well, what about this or what about that? And I tried really hard to get Neil deGrasse Tyson to say something and he was not going to bite. Well, no. And smartly, I think a scientist looks at the observational data and extrapolates from

there and I'm sure, like I said, I'm sure, and I think he even said in the interview that sure, people like to talk about these things, but it's not like hard science. And also to answer that flat problem that I brought up, apparently inflation theory does answer. It does satisfy it by saying the universe appears flat to us because we're looking at it strictly on a very local level, even though we're looking at 90, 90 billion light years or something like that, right? The it, it, it's really just a very small segment of something.

So if you take a balloon and you blow it up, yeah, it's still curved. But the, if you're just looking at just a pinpoint segment of it, it's going to appear flat to everybody looking at it from just that tiny perspective. So it's basically our perspective that we're looking at the universe right now makes it seem like it's flat, but it's really actually curved one way or the other. Right. That's the answer to that. Well, should we talk about some of the problems with the Big Bang Theory?

Sure. There are criticisms and there will continue to be. One was that, is that it violates the first law of thermodynamics that you can't create or destroy matter or energy. And proponents will say that that's unwarranted for a couple of reasons. One is it, like we already said, it doesn't address the creation of the universe. It was never meant to. But just how it evolved or inflated over the years, over the years, over the 60 or 70

years. Right. And another reason is kind of like we said earlier is that the further back you go, the rules don't apply. Maybe the law of thermodynamics is just completely moot when you go back that far. Yeah. Like it didn't come into being until later. Yeah.

If matter and energy are like one in the same, I can imagine that some of our current laws don't necessarily apply. Yeah. Well, probably a lot of them. And then one of the other things too is that inflation, that supposedly happened when the strong nuclear force decoupled from the electroweak force and the universe suddenly expanded. Within that one second, it just kept growing and growing and growing way faster than the speed of light.

Yeah. And a lot of people are like, wrong. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Well, there was no light. Well, nothing you could see. Yeah. There are definitely photons. But they had that the proponents of Big Bang have the same answer.

They say, well, again, dude, you're talking general relativity. That wouldn't have applied at all. Yeah. The answer is kind of consistently, don't even come at me with that. Your laws. Yeah. Should we talk about, should we finish with a few other alternative explanations? Yeah.

Like we said, there are alternative models, right? One of them is that same one that Einstein was a proponent of, the steady state model, that it is not actually expanding. And apparently, this is hard for me to wrap my mind around. The people who say that it's not expanding explain away expansion by saying that matters created as in proportion to the original density of the universe. Right. So, maybe the universe is expanding some and more matter has to be created to keep the

same density. So, I think what they're saying is that the universe has been at the same density all the time. Right. And sure, it's expanding, but it's also creating more matter. Right. Which holds it static. Yeah.

I guess so. The ech-py-rotic, ech-py-rotic, ech-py-rotic. I know those two letters should not be, ech-py-rotic. Ech-py-rotic model. Yeah, I think that's it. Man, that's just, we're the worst. That suggests the universe is the result of a collision of, well, that's when you brought up earlier, of two, three-dimensional worlds and that there is some hidden fourth dimension

out there. Well, that's part of, the fourth dimension is part of like standard astrophysics and cosmology. But this was like, this thing says our universe came out of two universes colliding in the fourth dimension, which, that defies me a little bit. But the idea that there are four dimensions and one of them is time is definitely part of like standard stuff. Right.

It's still hard to think of. Sure. And then plasma-cosmology, I like that one a lot because it's just totally different from the way we think of the universe. It seeks to describe it basically in its electrical charge state rather than like the temperature of it or the density or anything like that. It's more involved in like the plasma aspects of it because you know, plasma is ionized gas.

Yeah. And it's like a fourth state of matter and plasma-cosmology looks at it through that lens, which is basically totally alien to everything we just talked about from what I can gather. Did you just say there's totally aliens out there? There's aliens out there and the universe was started by a little kid with a lighter. Wow. That's my stand.

Well, if you like this, then stick around because right now, Chuck, we have an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson. We weren't joking. Yeah, great job on that one too, buddy. Thanks, man. We missed you. He was like, where's Chuck? No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. Well, how are you guys doing? Good. How are you doing? Are you assuming I know how stuff works? I have an inkling that you may have a clue. So I guess my first question is then, how do you specifically, how do you think of the universe when you think of the universe as a whole, like do you think of it as something

like a speck of dust underneath a giant fingernail or is it part of a branching multiverse or is it a bubble that kind of pushes up against other bubbles? What is the universe when you think of it? I think of the universe in a fundamentally different way from that of my colleagues. What you want to do is separate the things we have data and observations to support and the things that live and thrive on the frontier of theorizing about what the universe was is or will one day be or what larger system it could be a part of. So if you live in the realm of data, then we are in an expanding universe and it's been

expanding for nearly 14 billion years and it was smaller in the past and hot in the past and it's getting larger and cooler by the minute. And we exist on this planet we call Earth born 4.6 billion years ago with the rest of the solar system in some undistinguished part of an undistinguished galaxy we call the Milky Way and this scenario, this picture was very hard earned and it's no more than about 80 or 90 years old in total. Edwin Hubble, the man in this particular usage of the word, Edwin Hubble in the 1920s, so about 90 years ago, 1926, discovered that there are other island universes, if you will.

Not the way we might think of that term today, but back then there were these spiral fuzzy things in the night sky, imagine to be just spiral fuzzy things in the Milky Way. He would show that those spiral fuzzy things are not in the Milky Way, they are entire other Milky Ways, other galaxies. And that was a profound expansion of our world view, if you would, and then just three years after that he would show that these spiral fuzzy things are rapidly moving away from us. Coupled with Einstein's general theory of relativity, we would learn that it's not just galaxies

spreading apart within a preexisting space, it is the fabric of the space and time itself that's expanding. All of this is supported by data. So if you have discomfort thinking that the universe had a beginning and that we will expand forever, then too bad, that's just what the universe says. And the universe, I've said this before, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you, especially when what we learn of the universe comes to us from methods and tools that completely transcend our native inborn biological senses, which in fact is

the great ascent of science, what are all the ways we can decode the operations of nature without having to rely on the limits that our biological senses force us to occupy. So when science is furthered, decades down the road, and the vision we have or the view we have of the universe we live in is magnified by orders of magnitude from what we're looking at through right now, what do you suspect, what shape do you suspect it's going to take? Do you have suspicions? And if I mean, if you don't, how do you keep yourself from making that leap? Like, yes, of course, this is what it's going to be.

This is what we're really living in. Well, we all have biases and let me not call them biases. Let's say we all have longings for how we think or want the universe to be. And if you begin to believe your longings too strongly, then you might miss some realities that don't fit your expectations and someone else will catch them and make the discovery. So it's okay to lean in one direction or another, but don't do so while being blind to what else could be true in spite of how you think it might be. So now the scenario I gave you is very well established in terms of observations and data

and basically a century of thinking about and observing the universe and posing questions and answering them. So beyond that, we can ask, is there a multiverse? This seems to come naturally out of certain thinking about the behavior of the universe when you try to bring together quantum physics and Einstein's general relativity. There are good arguments to suggest that we could be in a multiverse and it's not obvious, at least to me, how one would test that just yet. But the theories of the universe that point to a multiverse are themselves well tested.

So this is what gives you the confidence that maybe our multiverse folks are onto something. And there are other frontiers. For example, the quantum physics, which is the theory of the small and general relativity, the theory of the large, they work perfectly well in their own regimes. General relativity describing the large scale universe, quantum physics describing with very high precision, atoms, molecules, nuclei, particles, this sort of thing. But in the early universe, when the entire universe was the size of an atom, then we might suppose that quantum forces override whatever was going on with general relativity

because now the entire universe is of the size that quantum laws significantly manifest. And right now we do not have a good way to merge those two theories. And we've got top people working on it, collectively the string theorists and others in that realm who are thinking long and hard about a third theory that needs to be introduced that will enclose quantum physics and general relativity into a deeper, broader understanding of what's going on or will quantum physics absorb general relativity. I don't know that people know just yet and it involves very high levels of math and higher dimensions and this sort of thing.

And some people have criticized string theory for not really being a legitimate theory because you can't test it in any traditional way, but it's the only game in town. And they're not very expensive, you know. You give them a pencil and a pad and throw in a laptop and a string theorist is in business. So I let them go as far as they can take it. So it does seem like there is either, like you said, quantum physics may be the answer to all this. We just don't fully understand that field yet enough to get back to the moment of the

Big Bang or what happened before the Big Bang, but it could also be from what I've seen, the unified field theory that gets us back to that point. But either way, to get to a point where we go further beyond our current understanding, further back in time in the Big Bang, including before the Big Bang of what was before, it seems like it's going to take a vast leap forward. Do you think that leap is going to come from a genius that hasn't been born yet or has been born but hasn't been educated and entered the field yet? Is that how it's going to happen?

Is it going to happen from this person combining this work with this work and that work and this work and then suddenly the pieces are going to fall together in that sense? That's a great question that also has a philosophical dimension to it, such that in modern times great leaps in science, do they happen by the lone genius burning the candle at midnight coming up with a Eureka moment or do they come about because you have huge, expensive, highly collaborative scientific projects, such as LIGO discovering gravitational waves, such as the next generation space telescope, it's called the James Webb Space Telescope, not yet launched, but that will enable us to see galaxies being born in the early universe

as well as a host of other frontier observations that were not possible with previous telescopes. Well, that telescope had to be designed by whole teams of people with questions that they had in mind that they want answered by the new data. So I'm not convinced that we're just waiting for a new smart person to come along and have it all make sense. I think we're waiting for someone to obtain new data that we've never seen before that then force us into new ideas and understandings of the universe. Maybe there's some new theory that, maybe, I'm not discounting it, but I can tell you

we're in an era, look at the Higgs boson, for example, that required the Large Hadron Collider and thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of engineers who built the thing in the first place. So we're kind of in a collaborative era right now, and so if I were a betting man, I would say that the great discoveries to come will come about from huge collaborations, possibly even international collaborations. Now that doesn't remove the question as to whether there is an Einstein walking among us who happened to have been born into poverty in a developing country, and then we will

never know. Well, that would be one of the great tragedies of modern civilization. So I, as an educator, feel very strongly about what kind of access people of the world should have to knowledge, to learning, to health, to, you know, a person should be able to live a day and not have the entire day be preoccupied about whether you have food or whether or not you're going to die from a disease that your neighbor just died of. So this is a, so I think we should be able to measure our state of our civilization by the extent to which we are in the position to discover another Einstein rising up from

the midst, and that's one way to get an Einstein, another way to wait around until one is born into the right circumstances. Right. I'd rather, you know, we've got seven billion people on earth. And there's got to be bad ass enough to help us out. So you, I mean, you brought up your, your, your roles as an educator and you're a world-class science popularizer and explainer. What is it that got you into science as a kid?

I was, I was nine years old and it was a first visit to the Hayden planetarium right here in New York. My local planetarium, I think most big cities have planetariums. Even medium-sized cities will have a planetarium. And my family, my parents took my brother, my sister and me to all the cultural institutions of the city every weekend. So one weekend it was the Natural History Museum, another it was the zoo, another it was the aquarium.

We even went to other things that sort of talented grown-ups did, like we'd go to a baseball game or the opera or, or the theater. And that exposure enabled the three of us to see what is possible beyond the traditional, you want to be a doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, the, you know, the three traditional options that you're given as a, as a six-year-old or a seven-year-old. And so out of that arose my interest in the universe that really got cemented by, by the time I was 11, I knew that, in fact, I was so convinced that I wanted to do astrophysics that I began to, began to question whether, whether or not it was in fact the universe

that chose me. Hmm. That's really cool. Um, well, thank you very much, Dr. Tyson, we appreciate you joining us. This was like, you just took our big, big bang episode and moved along light year. So thank you. Oh, okay. Thank you.

And light year's not actually very far in the scale of the universe, so I feel better if I had taken it along billions. How about, how about a parsec or something? A parsec is, is only 3.26 light years, so that's still won't even happen. All right. All right. Billions of light years. And you know, a parsec is not even far enough away to get to the nearest star to the sun.

Okay. So you're just in the wrong zone there. Okay. Well then how about billions of parsecs? Nice. Okay. Thank you very much. What a guy, huh?

Great job. Yeah. He was, man, he's just such a cool customer. That's why he is where he is now. Yeah. If you hang out with him, head on over to the Hayden Planetarium, I'm sure he'd be happy to see you. Yeah, sure.

You can see him on tour. You can see him with StarTalk Live, he's got a podcast for those of you who don't know with our pal Eugene Merman. He was on our TV show even. He was. I didn't get a chance to ask him if he remembered that or not. I'm sure he didn't. That's why I didn't get a chance.

Yeah. That just would have been embarrassing. Well, if you want to know more about the Big Bang, type those words into the search bar at HowStuffWorks.com, and they'll bring up some great stuff. And since I said search bar, it's time for listener mail. I'm going to call this, is Russia European? Nice. Remember that?

Debate? Sure. Well, it wasn't so much a debate. We just kind of wondered. Right. In the Continents episode, hey guys, thanks for cracking me up with the show. It's astonishing how many film references you can fit into a geography lesson. Yes, Russia is definitely a European country, exclamation point.

Historically, it's always been considered a part of Europe. For example, it was named as one of the six major European countries in World War I, and the Tsar was closely related to other royalty in Europe. This is very different from China or India. Always much more distant and mysterious to the East. Also considered that maps are very deceptive. Over 75% of Russia's population is on the European side, including every major city from Moscow to St. Petersburg.

From Milan to Minsk. I knew you were going to say that. Very nice. I would have been so disappointed had you not. Most of the land you see to the East is empty and largely uninhabitable, only there to look pretty on a map. I don't know about that, but that's what the little kid with the lighter put it there for.

So cheers. That is from Timothy, and that was one heck of a science film reference. Timothy or Timofey? Is he Russian? Oh, good point. Yeah. It's Timofey Moscow. We just wrote it using his pseudonym, Timothy.

Milan to Minsk. If you want to get in touch with me and Chuck and Jerry, you can tweet to us at SYSKpodcast. You can join us on facebook.com slash stuffyoushouldknow and you can send us an email to stuffpodcast.howstuffworks.com. As always, join us at our home on the way at stuffyoushouldknow.com. For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit howstuffworks.com. On the podcast, Hey Dude, the 90s called David Lasher and Christine Taylor, stars of the cult classic show Hey Dude, bring you back to the days of slip dresses and choker necklaces. We're going to use Hey Dude as our jumping off point, but we are going to unpack and

dive back into the decade of the 90s. We lived it and now we're calling on all of our friends to come back and relive it. Listen to Hey Dude, the 90s called on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new iHeart podcast, Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. Do you ever think to yourself, what advice would Lance Bass and my favorite boy bands give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place because I'm here to help and a different hot

sexy teen crush boy bander each week to guide you through life. Tell everybody, everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen so we'll never ever have to say bye, bye, bye. Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts.