Known Universe: The Most Explosive

,    »  -   54 Comments
210
7.22
12345678910
Ratings: 7.22/10 from 9 users.

Storyline

Known Universe: The Most ExplosiveScientists believe that our universe started with a colossal explosion called the Big Bang.

That powerful blast created all the matter in the universe and laid the groundwork for every explosion since.

From exploding stars to asteroid impacts, Known Universe: The Most Explosive deconstructs some of the biggest explosions in the universe with unforgettable CGI and slow-motion footage.

Even a devastating earthquake would be tiny compared to what would happen if an asteroid six miles across slammed into Las Vegas.

In spectacularly realistic CGI, experience the impact and its blistering shock-wave. Discover how scientists have devised strategies to harness the sun's explosive power to divert dangerous meteorites from slamming into the Earth.

More great documentaries

54 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Agostinho Paulo Manhiça

    what if the hypothetical "Big Bang" was the end? why call it the beginning?

  2. Oxley

    Good question.

  3. Juraj Filkorn

    i do not think it is a good question. when time and space appeared then, the whole concepts of beginings and ends appeared with it. it does not give any sense outside of it. do not try to figure it out, you would have to be a person outside of big bang to grasp it.

  4. Pangaea

    "spectacularly realistic CGI" ? I ordered a pizza and popcorn specially to watch some "spectacularly realistic CGI" , and what do i get... a cold pizza while wasting time adjusting the colour and contrast on my tv attempting to make the "spectacularly realistic CGI" look a little bit more real.

    I expect a refund or a least a free pizza the next time i order from the producers of this documentary

    ;)

  5. SuperGreyAlien

    If the big bang created everthing how did the big bang occur?

  6. sKaar

    end of a previous universe, that's pretty much what black hole theory suggests.

  7. Tanzanos Eleytheros

    There's no way black powder will throw an anvil like that without a tight seal. Those guys must have used a blasting cap with a small amount of explosive in the powder; That is why they used an electric blasting igniter!

  8. steviecomment

    It was the end of something, and the beginning of something else.

  9. Taras Moskvichov

    A documentary about American fetish of blowing shit up... Even a documentary has to be reduced to an id**tic level to make it popular in US.

  10. sknb

    How do I full - screen it???? AH?

  11. Mantid

    The little rectangle in the bottom right hand corner.

  12. Sieben Stern

    lawl GAWD musta did it!

  13. Christian Klinckwort Guerrero

    Why must you present this in a Disney language? Take exsample of David Attenborough, please.

  14. sajun poar

    i ponder the same thing !! something had to of caused the big bang in the first place!! what and why !! what put that moment of singularity there and why!! tell them to answer that !!

  15. sajun poar

    very true ! we look up at the sky looking at stars. the light we see is from thousands of years ago ! how do we know if those stars are there or not !! i might be a total black sky out there in theory!

  16. wald0

    We call it the beginning because it set up a state of low entropy which naturally progresses toward higher entropy. That fact is why all the chemical and physical reactions we call natural happen, because the constituents of those reactions are attempting to move to a higher state of entropy. Think of it like a ball set atop a hill by the big bang, its natural tendency is to roll down the hill. That roll down the hill is what we are experiencing. When the ball reaches the bottom, the universe will have cooled to absolute zero, all motion and change will cease, it has reached the highest state of entropy possible and has become a dark, cold, and dead universe.

    Scientist don't agree yet as to how the universe will definitely end. We may end far before we reach such a state. The singularity has never been truly defined nor have we figured out where it came from. So, I suppose it could have been the left over remnant of some past universe that ended by collapsing into a singularity. But, we always describe things from our perspective, and from that point of view it was the beginning of our universe. Thus it makes sense to call it the beginning and not the end.

  17. wald0

    We are trying to answer that, trust me. The problem we run into is that once you progress back further than we already have the known laws of physics break down, no longer apply. So we have no rules of logic with which to guide our hypothesis. It’s like just guessing at that point. We can’t recreate the singularity in order to understand it, we can’t explore an existing singularity- see our problem? We have gone all the way back until the presently existing forces (gravity, magnetism, nuclear forces, etc.) combine into a sort of super force, until all that existed did so within an unimaginably small and incredibly hot space that was not ruled by our present laws of physics. How do you propose we go forward with no rules of logic or experience to base our hypothesis on? If we do so will the masses not simply call it a guess, after all many don’t believe what we already know. Perhaps quantum mechanics will provide some method for moving forward but, quantum theory is so unintuitive it will likely not be very satisfying from our perspective. That’s the key phrase see “our perspective”. A perspective born of the very thing we are trying to progress past, which inherently causes problems.

  18. Axel Brinck

    National Geographic has become more of a National Inquirer type of informer.

    Over and over, the booming voice over tells us that energy is created here or there. By that, the voice of authority means that energy is released.

    Whether is is nuclear energy in cosmic scales, to kinematic energy in asteroid collisions with Earth or chemical energy, energy is transformed and released.

    Axel

  19. PaulGloor

    What if.... we picture the universe as a grid of whatever the universe is made of where the space between the lines is getting larger and larger. If the expansion is relatively uniform across the universe, the center would appear to have the slowest expansion while the further out you go its not only expanding at the same rate as the center, but is being displaced to make room for everything before it. The universe technically wouldn't be accelerating and its no surprise that everything appears to be running away from us faster and faster the further we look.

  20. wald0

    Nothing really new in this doc. Not much theory discussed, cgi isn't really that impressive, and it has been dumbed down to an almost insulting level. That said, if you enjoy explosions for the simple awe of the thing, check it out.

  21. ProudinUS

    Hey Waldo,

    I learned a little bit on physics from that tutorial web page you referred me to a yr ago..........but I'm still a dumb welder.

    Pat

  22. nebra

    if black holes are made from supernova explosion then what about a black hole in the center of the galaxy? how did that one form? what kind of an explosion that must have been.

  23. dewflirt

    So this universe could have been created from a previous one, and then this one could start the next? I need to picture things to understand them. If our universe will expand until it pops like a balloon, does it also collapse like one? Could I think of it as a necklace of balloons? :)

  24. dmxi

    i prefer the theory of two (or more) membranes existing next to each other , then & when coliding at certain points which sparks positive & negative energy into matter,building our perceivable universe.i prefer this conclusion over the big bang theory due to my belief that only life can give life & a singularity has no duality which (in my opinion!) is a necessity to create the building blocks of life .

  25. mudshark23

    It seems that if space is curved, traveling in a straight line is impossible. So, if the universe is expanding equidistantly... eventually all matter will converge in a different "place" and again coalesce into a singularity.

    My question is:

    Why does space need to be created in the first place?

    The current model states that space was created in The Big Bang. Is there something in the math that makes an endless and eternal vacuum implausible?

  26. wald0

    You are not dumb at all, in my opinion. I used to be a welder myself, nothing wrong with honest work. One need not know the details of theory or mathematics to get the overall picture anyway, though of course it helps. It was after I changed my major to chemistry that I really got a good understanding of physics, as odd as they may sound. Chemistry is physics in action. You don't get into quantum theory very much, only when dealing with subatomics, nor relativity. For the most part you stay within the lower end of the Newtonian level, which is just barely within our ability to grasp intuitively. Since the obvious starting point for students is Newtonian physics chemistry provides us the ability to really put theory to the test and see it instead of just theorizing. Others may have had different experiences but chemistry really ties it all together for me. Its great to see people reaching, striving to comprehend, instead of just buying into pop culture b.s. Cudos to you sir, i am sincerly impressed, for what its worth.

  27. wald0

    Actually they haven't decided which will happen, whether expansion will continue until the big rip or will it begin to slow one day eventually letting gravity win, i.e. the big crunch. They haven't even figured out yet if the universe is infinite or finite, which really plays into the previous question. If it is finite then what shape is it- flat, spherical, donut shaped, etc. we just don't know yet. Thats why I said it was possible that the singularity was a remnant of a past universe. This isn't the most popular theory right now but, it is still possible.

    To answer your second question- It would need be one way or the other, either it expands until everything rips apart or it collapses to a singularity, it can't do both at the same time.

    Third question-Could you picture the multiverse as a necklace of balloons? I hope this doesn't sound smug but, you could picture it anyway you like right now. Multiverse theory in my opinion isn't even real scientific theory, its scientific philosophy. I think it may have a bright future as real scientific theory but, right now it fails. The theory states that we could never interact with these other universes, never observe anything even indirectly, there is nothing to measure or quantify, its not real theory yet. Now there are many intelligent people that disagree with that opinion, and thats all it is an opinion. I am not a cosmologist nor a phsysist, I am a chemist. Maybe i should just say you would be better off asking this question of someone with better knowledge and let it go at that, I don't feel like fighting it out with all the pro-multiverse theory folks. Happy hunting, keep pushing and you will get enough data to form your own informed opinion on this subject. Just remember the rules of the scientific method, if it doesn't meet the standards no matter who says it, it is just a hypothesis at the most, not real theory.

  28. wald0

    You are somewhat describing the prevailing multiverse theory, the brane theory. It doesn't say anything about duality or life springing only from pre-existing life, but the rest is the same. However, they think that collision of membranes is what caused the big bang, not that it replaced it in anyway. That said, all of this is simply philosophy, or hypothesis at best, in my opinion. Until we have something we can measure or quantify, some way to observe either directly or indirectly, its not theory its just educated guessing or simple conjecture. That said, there are many on this site that follow all the multiverse theory closely and they can discuss this much better with you. Thanks for the reply though, keep pushing on.

  29. Achems_Razor

    @dewflirt:...Welcome to the multiverse, @waldO: gave you some very good insight into what you are seeking.

    To further your quest to gain more knowledge of the science in progress about "M theory" I suggest you read Brian Greenes" book..."The hidden Reality."

  30. dewflirt

    Only been here two minutes and I'm lost already, my thanks to you and Wald0 for the directions :)

  31. dmxi

    i'm just a sandcorn with an opinion in this miriad of beaches...
    like you stated......i'm guessing with a pinch of philosophy but it is a tool to grasp the unquantifiable.

  32. Guest

    *ironically* And you would think that because (good) science stops short at the very point at which its known laws will progress no farther that it would garner even more respect for that than it apparently does among these current populations.
    The very human DEMAND for answers: Simultaneously showing us at our best and worst...
    Sometimes I think the scientists ought to just shrug it all off to a certain kind of mindset thusly: The Singularity is God's ace of spades!

    (and then add, in a Galileon whisper, "so far.")

  33. Guest

    A documentary about Conservative Americans fetish for blowing **** up... Even commentary has to be reduced to an id**tic level to make it popular in some of these forums.

  34. Subhro Paul

    The information on big bang is already expired after the advent of string theory.

  35. Guest

    What the string theorists need is empirical proof and repeatable experiments, rather than JUST mathematics, is my understanding.

  36. Guest

    I guess i'll dare a question.
    How come when the meteorite hit the ground, the ball of it is no longer there? Does it desintegrate? Bounce a way?
    I am just starting the doc so perhaps the answer is coming.
    az

  37. Achems_Razor

    Az...have not watched the doc, but when anything of some size is coming at the earth approx, 22,000 miles per hour will make a very large crater and basically disintegrate and melt in some cases the sand or rock into glass like particles.

  38. Guest

    I agree with you...spring theorists need hempirical proof and repeatable arguments, rather than just linguistic misunderstanding. LOL
    az

  39. dewflirt

    AZ, that was an amazing little book. Tried to limit myself to ten pages this morning but couldn't stop 'til I reached the end. Plenty of people to send it on to :) think I might have mentioned this before, your boy, Prof Cox - A Night With the Stars. The whole thing is on YouTube. You are vast and empty! :) very lovely

  40. Guest

    this is what @pysmythe had to say about it but for some reason it got lost, THE BOOK pertains to this doc because it is about science:

    "I'm a little over a third of the way through already, believe it or not. In some ways, it reminds me of Hofstadter's immortal 'Godel, Escher, Bach,' wherein at the start of each chapter you have a character relating a little illustrative anecdote designed to do much the same thing being done here: Expose the limitations of our ability to actually understand the first thing whatsoever... Also, despite the author's words to the contrary at the start, it's pretty filled with a very gentle humor, don't you think? I, for one, really appreciate words that tackle GIGANTIC ISSUES in a light-hearted and facile way (it's the Frenchman in me), and so, with that in mind, at this point, I would say to the little old man that JUST MAYBE our ability to even ask these questions justifies our arrogance, lol.
    Also, the swaddled little chap reminds me somewhat of one of A.C. Clarke's robot-characters (I forget the story), who turns out in the end to be pretty much God himself, with a thus far equally fine-tuned sense of irony and inability to be pinned down. (A rock from the perspective of the Almighty was particularly enlightening and amusing! And inarguable... accepting certain things as a given, lol.)"
    ...........
    Happy you enjoyed it, it gave me many smiles and a little extra look into the cosmos.
    az

  41. Guest

    I saw a Night with the Star a while back...it gave me that similar little girl happy kind of feeling in my tummy.
    az

  42. dewflirt

    Yes, a tickle in the tummy! Still smiling now. Loved the potato/carrot bit too, my dad used to say something similar but with colours. Imagine if all your life you had been told that red was green..... Got to go and get my kids, see ya later :)

  43. Guest

    i got told all my life that yellow was green and green was yellow, my father is a true colour blind. Blue is the only colour he sees quite well but not always depending on the blue. Makes me happy to know we see the sky in a similar way.
    az

  44. naidni

    @Pysmythe Well said! They too jus donno.The ? is why does anyone think they know!!The only thing to know is that we donno!!!

  45. Richie Cahill

    Michael Bay doesn't do documentaries, but if he did, they would be awful low brow drek like this.

  46. petescag

    Agreed, all theories should be allowed to evolve as new information is obtained. The "Big Bang" is as obsolete a theory as the image of electrons orbiting around a nucleus. But like that it has caught on and is now regarded as fact .....like so much other "science" garbage which has become dogma and near impossible to move on from intelligently.

  47. John Rogers Harry Tork

    The narrator makes this doc one of the best ever made! All you have to do is image him recording his audio in the studio, reading the script. Pretty interesting information with a narrator who has aspergers syndrome. hahah, he gets so excited

  48. Nutron Star

    Great info.. but I am really tired of these B-Grade productions, They are just too noisy , too much swish and poof sounds , wrong VO's for the job, etc, etc,.. just bad production in my opinion. :(

  49. Elyse Buttwhole

    Really well narrated. Well constructed. Interesting information. Very entertaining documentary.

  50. Arthur Waite

    "First, I'm gonna tell ya what I'm gonna tell ya, then I'm gonna tell ya what I'm gonna tell ya, then I'm gonna tell ya what I told ya."
    And I'm gonna show the same clips about eleven times each, and I'm gonna make it so simple that an eight-year-old will be insulted, and I'm gonna throw in about one minute of genuine science so that nobody can complain. How's that?
    The last time I saw the bit with the anvils, they were 87-pounds each. Yay Discovery!

  51. Simon Dahlström

    A theory in science, can be proven right, but still be called a theory. A theory in this way can get updated at any time, and get more precise with time. The more we know in field, the more precise we can get, and science have never said it knows all, and that it got answers for everything.

    Religion claims to have all answers though, but yet to present any kind of proof what so ever.

    Scientists present proof with their claims, and with an explanation, and that they do NOT know everything (They shouldn't have to explain that every time, but it seem's the dumb people outnumbers the smart ones).

  52. Winston Smith

    The same word can have different meaningless. A theory, in science, is just about the highest level of proof that can be attained. This rule is meant to remind us that, unlike religion, scientific knowledge does not deal in absolutes. If some more satisfactory explanation for something comes alone then we update to account for it.

  53. kennethone

    a supernova occurs once a century inthe universe and is the most powerful explosion? I guess I'll have to stop watching here

Leave a comment / review: