Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- The theory of the Big Bang describes the biggest event of all time- the origin of the universe itself. Scientists are confident that this theory accurately describes the life story of the universe over its 14 billion year history. However scientists like to check and recheck their work and they have found a discrepancy in two measurements of how fast the universe is expanding. This discrepancy could mean the need to add another twist in the story, or it could disappear with more study. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln helps us sort it all out.
For more information visit www.fnal.gov - Věda a technologie
As soon as I saw the thumbnail I could hear Issac in my head saying "Every headline which ends in a question mark, poses a question for which the answer is no.".
Surely there must be exceptions? Not that any come to mind
As I'm Off for the day I can't reply. See what I did there?
Atlas WalkedAway Like the tv weathermen: “will it rain this weekend? More later.” Don’t bother to wait, the answer is no...
john
Wrong. The answer will of course always be yes, but the real question is not IF but WHERE.
Frank Schneider LoL! I stand corrected! But if it rains, where I am not, do I really care? Or, does it reeeaally rain somewhere else or is this all a simulation?
"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?"
"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?" Love this. We now can blame dark screen energy on MicroStuft. When all else fails reboot. :-)
Dark energy, dark matter, can anyone remind me why we can't just call it ether?
I suggest hitting it with a _really_ big wrench.
Yea; like rebooting your computer. I'm sure that will solve the problem. If not well, never mind.
Unplug from power source, wait 60 seconds, and then plug it back in. We hope these solutions have helped and look forward to hearing your feedback!
The universe was installing updates and needed to reboot.
Only if it is a Microsoft product.
lol
So you are Implying that Bill Gates is God, and angels are really just programmers at Microsoft?
@@wayneyadams lol
@@wayneyadams Devil and demons :|
science: we dont have answers
mystic: we dont have questions, only answers
I'd help you guys out, but the number 9 hasn't worked on my calculator since high school.
@Sean Coyne: Re your "the digit 9 iz broken on me calculator"
Youze hadda kalku-later? In skool?
Lucky you!
I only had calculi ... and I am still working at passing them ... out!
HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019)
That musta been it
I am sure that Douglas Adams will have all the answers somewhere in his writings!
Fortunately I have a solution! Every time you need '9', us the expression '(8+10)/2'. Voila!
Am I missing some meme or joke here? Highly confused
One thing I'd really enjoy you discuss is how relativity (time dilation) plays in the early universe due to so much mass in close proximity and its velocity.
Everyone upvote this!
Try this idea. The initial singularity did not have infinite density. It was dimensionless, timeless, without mass or matter and without gravity. It was, NOTHING. The only thing required to start things off was the beginning of time. The beginning of the oscillating field of energy we experience as time. With this sudden field of time, there was a sudden inflation of space, since if you increase the time rate then space expands (or inflates). Both Special and General Relativity show that if you reduce the time rate then space "shrinks". In the limit, when time stops, space has shrunk to zero volume. It is logical therefore to conclude that increasing the time rate increases the "size" of space. Matter (particles) did not form until after (or during) the initial inflation. After all, inflation would have carried on without gravity to halt it and the formation of fundamental matter particles did just that. We must also conclude (if this idea is correct) that all particles, all matter, and therefore gravity emerged from the field of energy we experience as time. Everything is made of energy. Time is energy. Everything is made of time. Why do you think time dilates in the presence of energy? Because matter particles use some of it for their internal kinetic energy That's all particles are - trapped energy (from the field of time). Why do you think time slows down for increasing kinetic energy? Because the energy is being used (by the traveller) from the field, for his kinetic energy. When he uses all the energy of the field at the same rate it is being produced, then time stops and you cannot go any faster. You are using every Planck time for progression through space so none are left to move you through time. 'Just a flavour of my book "The Binary Universe" - (A Theory of Time). uppbooks.com/shop/product/the-binary-universe-a-theory-of-time/
Ken Hughes this is interesting.
Ken Hughes , what do you say about the idea that time is actually not an independent variable but a reflection of relative interactions among physical entities/energies? I guess I should read your book, eh?
Ken Hughes Baryon acoustic oscillations show existence of particles early in the inflation process. I think this proves that there was matter first and space time is an emergent property of entropy.
In a world where too many are too cocksure of their answers, a bit of honest humility of "We don't know" is very refreshing. Uncertainty in the frontier of science is natural. Thanks to Fermilab!
Hello Dr. Don Lincoln,
Could you do a video about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?
10:32 THANK YOU Dr. Lincoln for being Physicist, and not an English major!
In science, errors aren't a problem: they are where to look for new understanding.
Well, they do indicate you have an issue with your theory though.
Mosern1977
No ... it very likely just means the the current model being used is in some aspects just too simplistic and needs to be enhanced. If you adapt the model the predictions of the theory that's based upon it will change. So you try to enhance the model and see if the resulting predictions better fit the observation. As long as you don't actively modify the model to fit the observation, that's a perfectly valid approach.
It's far too early and the evidence far, far too weak, to immediately question the whole theory itself. That's only the case if the issue can't be solved in the long run or gets even worse.
Not exclusively within science, that's true everywhere.
@@Dprkr1 You and I live in different worlds, unfortunately.
Mosern1977 It shows you which way you need to improve your theories. Relativity and quantum physics were both started as unexplained “errors” in the calculations.
Galaxies moving away from Earth? I bet they do. Other worlds know what we are and try to stay away.
😅😂
🖕
They guessed it's the only way to not get a knock on the door one day by Jehovah Witnesses.
@@AdamAlbilya1 ahahahahhaahahhaahahhhahAHAHAHhahahHAHAHAHAH u dont know how much u made my day. sharing with friends..jehovah :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDddddd ive chated..talked to those damn they funny
LordArioh yes and is probably also the answer to the Fermi paradox, the aliens are out there they are just avoiding us.
Dr. Lincoln,, Greetings from northen Sweden and a new subriber, even though I have been watching the channel for a long time. I don't know how or what I have done but my kids, 11 and 14 years old are watching the channel among others.
I do like the way you manage to get some humor in to the videos as well.
Science rules.. Always.
Could you be related to Pastor Hank Lindstrom, "How Permanent Is Your Salvation?", on CZcams.
@@kentwilbourne996 not to my knowlage.
Stay safe and take care.
Just been scrolling through the comments, yikes! Something about physics seems to act as a magnet to the crazies.
If you want to see real loonies, try the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup.
Yup. xD Most of them aren't even worth an answer.
Actually there are some intelligent reply’s like we don’t know. And that is the hardest concept for physicists, quantum physicists, doctors and politicians to understand or admit. Just ask 10 lawyers their educated opinion. Now let me throw some tar in your gears. Ask the religious brainiacs their opinion. Not me I’m outta here........
It's not clickbait if you were going to watch the video anyway.
Viewer intention has no bearing on whether a title is click bait-y or not.
I would have watched it but at a later time, clickbait by my definition
Dr Don's videos are great quality and are not pushing ads at anyone, ergo no matter what the title is, this is no clickbait!
What a way to go viral though! I couldn't click fast enough.
@Eric Burkheimer Exactly. The title is certainly not clickbait. Some of these idiots will call ANY video title clickbait just for the attention.
thanks for the Betty White joke, young man.
Those of us with Gray or White hair appreciate that. All Ok.
Betty White's first appearance on Television was 3 months after Graduation in 1939 where she and her classmates sang songs from The Merry Widow on an Experimental Los Angeles Channel. She was also on a documentary which took 10 years to complete which aired August 18, 2018 called Betty White First Lady of Television.
I love how in the first 45 seconds of the video you're just like "No. They haven't." Thanks for not having 8 minutes of BS until you actually answer the question in the title. Still gonna watch the rest though of course!
@Bertrand de Born Ok, so I am going to watch those two videos to see what you are talking about. But before I do that I gotta ask.... You realize you sound like a complete nutter, right?
amicloud don't bother wasting your time. The links are just to another nutter
+Bertrand de Born I find it amusing how you mention Epstein only because he is very relevant now because if he didn't get arrested and then died you wouldn't even know who he is.
Anyways i'd rather trust what every scientific instituion in the world says and has proven than what a bunch of scientifically illiterate paranoid schizophrenics on youtube comments and videos rumble about.
Zbigniew Modrzejewski It does require a better theory to disprove it, which there are none so far. Regardless when the evidence is practically insurmountable czcams.com/video/aPStj2ZuXug/video.html
@Zbigniew Modrzejewski Uhh, actually it is experimentally falsifiable. We have thousands of experiments verifying the theory, and not one that actually disapproves it. But I don't suppose you care
You forgot the last and the most important fact: Betty White was the Original Singularity, the Primordial Cause, and the ‘Branes’ behind The Big Bang.
Branes?
You need a quantum theory , they always come in handy when you don’t know something in physics
The Betty White joke was the most fascinating part by far
Mind blowing
So, Dark Energy switched off, then switched back on again. Sounds legit.
@@blackandcold No, not if you juxtapose the Schrödinger's Pyoussy width with the Wood-Planx Constant in a third of an octave above Z#. Unless, of course, you de-rationalize the Tomz-Harry-Dick postulate to a minor fifth.
HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019)
So 'dark energy', that energy that works completely differently to 'normal' energy, (it's stronger the further you are away!!) doing anything (switching on/off) also sounds just as 'legit'!... Never detected, just like dark matter. Or as I prefer to call it 'magic fairy dust"'. Cosmology is in such a bad place right now (for the past 100 years). It's a shame..
But it all makes sense if you just accept that the big bang simply did not happen...
So, 95% of the universe is theoretical. Isn’t it time we switched to a model that isn’t propped up by so much dark (invented) stuff?
@@arsemyth8920 sure. What do you suggest?
@@hiltonchapman4844 Well that's just genius I tell you what.
Car guy 1: I think the car is Cherry Red.
Car guy 2: I’m pretty sure it’s Atomic Red - they didn’t make these cars in Cherry Red the year it came out.
Newspaper Headline: Car guys disprove car exists!
"News" reports circulate about public outrage surrounding "paintgate", the car should be allowed to identify as cherry red if it feels cherry red.
Thats pretty much science. lol
Newspaper headline: anti car Amish religious whackjobs use new car data to prove that cars are a hoax foisted upon humanity by Satan.
I find it rather interesting that assuming The Big Bang actually happened, that would also mean that it was so incredibly dense at one point that the gravity it had would have been too strong for it to have flown apart.
A singularity of infinite size. Thats what we are supposed to accept. It BS.
I love the coy sense of humour with that serious note of getting the message across very clearly. Good stuff. I’m looking forward hearing more on particle physics.
"...a Megaparsec is just 3.3........million light years."
Fantastic delivery, sir.
3.3 is so arbitrary, it almost sounds like 2 million imperial light years converted to metric or something... :-D
@@zlac Yeah it sounds arbitrary. But the unit parsec is derived on solid ground. It is the distance at which one Astronomical Unit (avg. distance b/w the earth and sun) subtends an angle of one arcsecond (1/3600 of a degree). Both are cool units, although personally I like lightyears more.
@@zlac Blame the semimajor axis of the earth's orbit. That's what the parsec is based on.
Then of course there's the Barn-Megaparsec, which works out to about 2/3 of a teaspoon.
@Rajesh Thomas: Light years are a bit easier to understand, but parsecs are rooted in the method we're using to measure these distances. As such it's kind of a little closer to the truth of what we've observed: Because we can't directly measure the distance to these objects: rather we can measure observable parallax effects as we orbit the sun, and then use that to calculate the distance.
Both units are very geocentric in nature, one based on the orbital radius of the Earth, one based on the orbital period of the Earth - but it is the former quantity, the orbital radius of the Earth, which is meaningful to the measurement, and if we had somehow gotten that quantity wrong, our idea of how far a parsec is (expressed in terms of other units) would change, but an object measured at 19 parsecs away would still be 19 parsecs away.
Why assume dark energy was the force that changed? What if it was gravity? If one force can fluctuate, why not some others, or all of them.
The answer is probably, "Go get a doctorate and let us know when you answer your own question."
No need for weak gravity we got soft concrete.. putty putty putty
Radioactive decay rates are variable depending on day or night, the phase of the moon, and seasonally.
Is gravity a real force? Probably not.
@@clairpahlavi Honestly, I've heard it all now. "Is gravity a real force? Probably not".
@@clairpahlavi "Radioactive decay rates are variable depending on day or night, the phase of the moon, and seasonally. "
Makes sense.
Wait.... What???!!!!
That, I'm afraid, is dead wrong.
What if the Hubble constant isn't a constant?
It might not be a constant, but it's still a Hubble
All my life I hated universal constants exactly because we cannot prove they are constants or varying with space and time as well
@@ioannisimansola7115 Well, constant is a matter of perspective :)
The value of the HC has been changed several times over the years to account for inconsistencies in Big Bang hypotheses.
@@ioannisimansola7115 and that is exatctly the reason why everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
There is no proof that things worked like a clockwork. Even law of nature crystalized out of everything and it doesent mean its a constant. It is true now for our time and our understanding, but might not have been in the past or in the future.
Classic Science mostly does not dig into this matter too much, because it would nullify any advancement on their part.
Modern Science is a little bit more open to this option.
"Get real it's only 10%"
Muon Spin: hold my beer
Well appreciated channel, thank you. In this vid, I notice how when talking about e.g. 'the universe is expanding' scientists really mean the Observable universe. Don mentions the O word in the beginning but more often than not it gets glossed over. We could be in an expanding bubble, surrounded by shrinking universe :)
You are the best physics lecturer I have ever heard in life and on youtube. You are awesome! Along with Agadmator (Chess)
What I learned here is that we don’t KNOW a damn thing for sure.
Welcome to science. That said, there are things we know pretty well, to the point that we just assume they will work (like brakes) and if they don't work enough times, then the science needs to be revisited.
Life would be pretty boring if we understood EVERYTHING
But we do know God cheats are wrestling because it says so in the bible. Genesis 32:22-32
Kinda sucks knowing all the answers huh? It’s definitely better to have questions rather then crazy answers written by Bronze Age sheep farmers.
@@john-paulsilke893 Moses was Prince of Egypt. Rabbi Jesus son of Joseph was teaching the rabbis in the Temple when he was 12. GOD's 'chosen one' then spent the next 18 years going around to all the world centers learning from their cultures and teaching them.
WARNING! Today may be your Judgment Day.
@@BradWatsonMiami and from the NIV 22:21-39
Balaam’s Donkey could talk. This book is full of some serious Harry Potter stuff plus a ton of boring genealogies.
Points of information -The 'Hubble constant' was first derived by Georges Lemaître before Hubble! Astronomers didn't set out to measure the 'cosmic microwave background' as stated. It was an accidental discovery.
Give it up for Dr. Don 'The Shirt' Lincoln!
I thought Dr. Lincoln gonna say that the discrepancy is due to some event, the scientists named "The Dark Event". We know nothing about it, but we are sure it happened!
Yes, this is unfortunately the state of a lot of science right now. If there is something in reality that is not conforming to a theory, it's not the theory that's wrong, we just invent a new concept to fix the howls in it, sad.
@Zbigniew Modrzejewskilike multiverse? Dark matter could be just gravitational pull from parallel universes! Dark energy too!
Exactly.
@@AlexandraBryngelsson That's how scientifical theories work, they are mathematical models that correctly describe phenomenas we already observed and can correctly predict phenomenas we will observe in the future.
@@AlexandraBryngelsson this is the whole idea behind the big bang
If the world had teachers like this man at junior and senior schools we could have had scientists who could have unlocked the secrets of the universe by now. He explains things so clearly and leaves you wanting to learn more. Keep up the good work and be blessed !
Yes, science is a lot more interesting when explained by someone who has a good understanding of it
Galaxies moving away from ours:
a. Our spiral shaped galaxy is probably shrinking in size, thereby giving us a relative perspective of an expanding universe.
b. The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies would tend to push galaxies away from each other if nothing stopped them from doing so.
c. Combining 'a' and 'b' would tend to give a relative perspective of space expanding faster and faster from Earth's perspective, but space would not really be doing so. It would just appear that it would be doing so.
Isn't there a flaw in calculating the Hubble Constant using the distance between two points of matching temperatures by assuming that the temperatures observed are all results of identical circumstances? (Compared to using the current distance and velocity of individual points)
6:56 the data they are checking 👌 so thorough! 🤣
Could the difference between the two measurement be something to do with measuring around a curve vs. a 'straight' line?
Making difficult topics alot easier for the average person to understand.
Man.... Amazing💕😍 never thought about this...
How does the accelerating expansion not explain this?
Dark energy...1. place a marble on a merry go round, rotate the MgR at a given rate and the marble will accelerate until it falls off the edge. Simple physics. A vehicle will do the same exact thing to the limit of it mechanical ability. Remove friction and theoretically it should continue to accelerate indefinitely. Ramjets are designed around this principle and will continue to accelerate if uncontrolled until the device reaches an aerodynamic limit. 2. At USAF Undergraduate Flight School instructors use a gimbled chair in order to introduce baby aviators to the problem of spatial disorientation (I was a navigator starting in the mid 70s). You would sit in the chair, close your eyes and the instrutor would rotate the chair. You immediately felt the torque because of the cilia in the inner ear. We were instructed to raise a hand when we felt we had stopped rotating after which we opened our eyes to discover we were still rotating! It was an eerie sensation brought about by the lack of a point of reference while our eyes were closed. 3. Just about everything has angular momentum from the smallest atomic particles to wind and water and many other things. Soooooo, why not the universe? We would not be able to detect that angular momentum because there is no outside reference. I've seen the balloon analogy to describe inflation. Perhaps the balloon is rotating? We could never know. AS a result, angular momentum would look to us like a force acting upon galaxies which would, in turn, continue to accelerate because there is nothing to hinder their expansion. Just collating some diverse thoughts and experiences. Love your discussions. I can only image what it must have been like to sit in on one of Feynman's lectures!
Dear Dr. Lincoln. Thank you for very inspiring teachings! - you inspire your students to think and ask questions by presenting both the known and unknowns with a teaser that even some of the known concepts may need review. This video has prompted me to ask:
What if there was no dark energy or gravity prior to the thing going bang?
What if the repulsion gravity in dark energy is also just gravity, or at least the same mechanism?
Perhaps, in the initial expansion, DE and G would be indistinguishable. Matter would tend to coalesce, ie. pushed into larger objects under the repulsion-based gravity, while still expanding outward.
What if the underlying repulsion-based mechanism is simply electrons - many, many electrons that would occupy the vacuum space within the newly formed atoms (above and beyond the required number of bound electrons) and within the boundaries of the newly formed and expanding universe? Beyond the boundaries being true nothingness..
As you pointed out in the video, this initial expansion rate would, in time, fizzle out. What if the second (and current) expansion phase is due to electrons being ejected from the stars (follow the energy - Occam's razor) as they started to come on line? Does this fit into the expansion timeline? Wouldn't this star-formed DE explain the continued acceleration expansion of the universe, the bulging central star clusters in galaxies, and to bring it all closer to home, the increase in the astronomical unit?
'Electrons everywhere' may sound absurd - and, of course, easy to detect. Right? What if we are only able to detect electrons that are forced out of a homogeneous balance within the vacuum space? An electron beam formed, accelerated, and detected only when the local concentration is changed..
What if detection evidence exists all around us and is taken for granted? The formation of static electricity (referring to Ben Franklin's single electric fluid model and not the current electron-proton model), piezo electric accelerometers that respond to inertial forces by directly producing electrons (charge), and of course, the double slit experiment as viewed from Dr. Bohm's deterministic perspective.
Even though the electrons occupy all the vacuum space homogeneously, the interaction details with matter would have to be totally a quantum interaction. The exclusion zone (in the vacuum space within matter, as well as the electrons that may occupy that vacuum) is the nucleons. The number of nucleons in a hunk of matter holds the 'information' for the mass of that object, and any resulting gravitational or inertial forces. What if constant velocity interactions with matter cause electrons to 'pop out of existence' on the leading face of the object, and 're-appear' in the wake of the object. Could quantum superposition such as this explain the reason such interactions are not ordinarily detectable? Would just such an interaction explain all the fun stuff special relativity expresses? When the rate of change of velocity is altered, would it be reasonable to say that some electrons are then forced to pass through the object? This interaction thus producing a 'drag' force that we call an inertial force? (and also why the piezo accel works)
And you also mentioned the failure of what works on the universe scale tends to fail on the atomic scale. What if the nuclear forces are also not forces from within, but the same repulsion-based-push as gravity?
I hope that I have not exceeded my limit on how much can be posted here - certainly, I have presented too many questions..
the Clickbait title is strong with this one
He's learning the ways of CZcams!
Like you weren't gonna click anyways :-P
It was a part of the lesson if you think about it or did you not think that far.
Would upvote, but has 69 likes.
Well for one, science is about asking questions, and for two there was a rumour about this subject and they are responding to that rumour.
Also astronomers are not smart enough to solve this problem only theoretical cosmologists. Unless the answer is hiding in plain site. Hehe
I love you guys!!!! Can I come live at Fermilab? I'll pay rent and clean!
You don't even do that now!😀
@@BillFromTheHill100 what the heck? How do you know THAT?
@@jimmyshrimbe9361
Just playing... Ha!
You thought I knew you eh?
It was just funny to say.
Just put in the tape. Mom will bring up some pizza bagels in a few minutes.
This is a great video in explaining expansion after the Bang, but was the sideways TARDIS intentional at 9:00 minutes? :) Thank you for addressing BBT and its validity!
These Fermilab videos are great, but there's little or no info on the actual tools / gear and specifically apps used to get / generate the presented results.
Perhaps our instruments aren't as precise as we think they are.
Love this one just like all the others! I'm a classical musician, but really get a big charge out of relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. I'm really enjoying your videos.
In for commentary about Penrose’s CCC and the experimental findings supporting it
I really enjoyed this video, it was a revelation to hear that the dark energy concept appears to have happened I two stages. I have heard some in the scientific community talk of a big rip as an end point to the universe, I assume this because they don't foresee a stage three to dark energy perhaps changing it's characteristics as it has shown with stages 1 and 2.
I wonder if there is a stage 3 that may have the dark energy contract and the cyclic cosmos theory would be a credible theory for the evolution of the universe.
Great video Fermi Lab, and I love Don's t-shirts and dry humour, I am awful with understanding jokes but I get his humour thankfully.
Beautiful episode. It went by fast.
I see what you did there. ;-)
Fermilab and David Butler have done more to increase my 'limited' knowledge of science than most others.Great teachers.
Awesome explanation and wonderful videos- I watch them all. A year ago, I read this article about possible attractive forces beyond our current known spatial dimension and we are, for lack of a better term, “surfing” on these forces. Perhaps that is the missing component for determining a more accurate and agreeable expansion rate. Also, if the forces are not homogeneous, that would also explain discrepancies. I believe this may be the journal I was referring to: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301
I find these topics fascinating- and the animation you used to show the galaxies drifting away or perhaps towards something really suggests there is so much more than we have been able to observe.
Excellent easy to follow and understand video. Thank you. Subscribed.
Well played, Dr Lincoln. I read the title and was like "WHAAAHHH???"
Fermilab's english major to physicist ratio may fall a few percentage points shy of being absolutely spectacular (a good thing for a physics lab) - but you creatively cream captivating cosmic click-bait captions!
Lol was Betty White put on the thumbnail to show how old 13 billion years is? 🤣🤣🤣
Very good. You make phisycs more understandable. Congratulations.👏👍
"400000 years old sounds pretty old"
the universe: nah, that's tiny. i'm 13.7 billion now and my lifespan is over 10^94 years
the immortal queen of england: not bad, kid. but i can live for an eternity
superspruce with septillions of eternities: _pathetic_
@7:00 They don't look like they're doing much work.
The most disappointing thing about astrophysics today is that misinformation is almost as common as in politics. "Nobody seriously questions that the universe began 14 billion years ago and has been expanding since" is simply not true. Edwin Hubble insisted to the end of his life that the cause of galactic redshifts had not been determined. Carl Sagan wrote that if galaxies turned out to have large black holes at the center of them, it would be necessary to determine how much of the redshift is caused by the black holes. In 2014 New Scientist magazine published a letter from 33 scientists disputing the Big Bang, and complaining of the suppression of dissent on the topic. How could Don Lincoln not know this?
Fermilab is an awesome place to visit, they have tours plus they do a some lectures.
Dark energy should be renamed as "the force"
== The Conglomerate of Universes - Universe Creation Theory ==
combining GOD/Nature, ancient religions, astronomy, cosmology, fined-tuned laws of physics/general relativity/quantum mechanics, chaos theory/fractals, laws of biology & chemistry, linguistics/code-breaking, programming the Universe/GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 theory, mysticism, and philosophy/ anthropic principle
"Energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed/transferred in an isolated system." General relativity allows black holes, white holes and Big Bang.
‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang’ inflation/expansion of energy₇₄ and information into the void 13.8 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent₇₄ universe’. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density break-ing through spacetime in ‘Cosmic Egg hatchings’ of all created universes within ‘The Conglomerate’: multiverse with no random quantum fluctuation bubble universes, no parallel universes or parallel worlds, and no universes with different physical laws. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring’ each with the same inherited ‘DNA’.
“In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH is a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions’ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes’ with energy-matter and data transformed/transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. The ubiquitous cause-and-effect ‘circle of life cycle’: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains infinite space and eternity - a necessity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s plan for greatly spreading life from cells to universes. GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 is the #1 program₇₄/law/initial₇₄ condition (GOD704.fandom.com ).
Why does this Universe exist? It’s our playground (god + run = ground₆₄).
- Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce this - it's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
5:49- "Nobody seriously questions that the universe began fourteen billion years ago..."
Except Ken Ham.
Ken Ham for president!
@@Georgia-Vic Just what we need....another idiot in the White House.
And me
@@scotttillinghast9665 Birds of a feather.
16 Aug 2019 Keith Stevenson being an novice, armchair cosmologist, most encouraging. thanks .
I love this channel and Dr. Lincoln's down-to-earth delivery of physics information! That said, with the discrepancy between the methods/results of measuring the Hubble Constant, the incompatibility of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, or our understanding of gravity, you wonder how much humans really understand about the physics of the Universe? Clearly we are just taking our first baby steps with the weight of knowledge yet to be discovered far out-weighing what we think we know presently.
we understand so much already, considering how "dumb" we were scientifically just 100 years ago
Well, I'm not an expert in the field and I'm just asking a simple question to be clear. But the first thing that came through my mind was Gravity.
In the early universe all matter of the universe was so close and dense which meant thr gravity force was enormously high. Would the gravitational force be able to decelerate the expansion rate back then?
This might help, although it's really a different equation: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Hello, I am a Russian college student who is crazy about science. Your CZcams channel delighted me and awakened even more traction. I like the way you decided to popularize science, but one thing haunts me: I have not found on the Internet a single translation of your videos in other languages. (in my case, in Russian) I know English very well, but many Russians do not but this does not mean that they do not like physics. it’s unfortunate that they cannot see your videos because of the language barrier. I offer my helping hand. I'm going to translate videos like yours by voicing them in Russian. From you, I only need copyright permission to use your content. I have not started anything yet. But I’m going to start soon, hoping for your approval.
I mean I will start my own YTchanel with translations.
ur sense of humor its..........fantastic !!
How do you measure this very low 2.7kelvin temps and remove other sources of the same frequency?
Dark Matter, and Dark Energy especially are misnamed. They should use a much older name for them: Magic.
They exist only to save the theory. If the history of science shows anything, it is much more likely that the theory is fundamentally wrong rather than there are mysterious forces out there that have no effect other than to make the equations come out right.
This is very similar to the epicycles that they introduced to save the earth-centered universe theory when observations didn't match the theory.
Well said!
Yup. It’s amazing scientists can believe in things that are akin to spirituality and magic...and they don’t seem to even notice.
You clearly don't understand the subject. Dark matter and energy are just placeholders. There is observed effect where we can't detect the cause. It's clear that there is something that has the effect of matter and something that has the effect of energy. This has been rigorously studied and scrutinized.
but..but holographic universe theory has answers to dark matter and energy..
Tadferd you’re right. There is observed effects, but there are other theories that have been dealing with them... Some even more plausible than the standard model. For example, if relativity is true and matter and energy are related, and if the universe moves up in a 5th dimension, so all dark matter can be inertial mass of the ordinary matter plus gravity of the energy that expands the space, also CMB can be the vibration of space/time while it goes upwards...
Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang?
Famous physicist says:
"What the frick? No, why would they?"
What do you mean? Are you saying that it's absolutely 100% correct and everyone knows it or are you saying that they are so biased they would never turn against it? Or maybe you are saying something entirely different.
@@pigsbishop99 Just a meme, man...
But still, for now BB is the most probable version.
@@MrHerhor67 No, it is not. Have you had a single thought independent of the propaganda machine? How about you go read the full version of SubQuantum Kinetics ... many libraries have it. Its graduate level physics, so it might take awhile. You just have to stop and lookup things from time to time.
It explains observed evidence FAR BETTER than the BB.
@@Charlesincharge42 Quantum Confusion!!
Does the image of the CMB wrap around to/on itself? I.e. is it an image of the 4 pi solid angle, laid flat like a Mercator projection? When you drive off one edge do you drive onto the opposite edge?
What about adding a measurement from slightly later than 4000ABB (After Big Bang) to see if it agrees with the measurement from 4000ABB or perhaps the rate of the expansion does not only depends on distance but also on time? I.e. the acceleration is not constant as a function of time, thus the two current measurements , although different, are correct.
Another solution might be that the acceleration function is not the same in each direction due to e.g. varying dark energy clusters. Although it might oppose to the uniformity of space.
we dont have a map of the universe from "slightly later"
3:19 -
"This reminds of the story of what happened to Hans Glurgersterflurgen, St' Olaf's most *evil* radio astronomer..."
"ROSE!! No one wants to hear about Hans Ger... flergerst.. St. Olaf's radio astronomer!"
Wow,for a moment I thought we all never happened...pfff.
I find it interesting that depending on what science show you watch that talks about the "cosmology crisis" have different interpretation of it. He says big Bang hasn't been disproven while others say the age of the universe may indeed be older then we think.
Enjoyed the vid, thanks
love his sometimes kinda awkward presenting / jokes. Proves that he's a really smart guy :p
I did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
What is a kessel run?
@@joeshmoe7967 It's a Star Wars reference and just goes to show what an ignorant idiot George Lucas is.
I really appreciate Don's honest, knowledgeable, and personable presentation here.
"Honest"? Hmmm. I question that.
Could you make a video on what the second quantization is?
How can you disprove something that hasnt been proven. Unless a theory is a proven fact.
I would suggest that one can disprove *only* things that have never been proven. For example, some people claim that the Earth is a disc and not a sphere. They have never properly proven it to be a disc, yet it seems there are many ways of disproving their claim. Conversely, if I actually *prove* the Earth to be a sphere, no one can disprove it - they would be wrong.
David is exactly correct. You can only disprove a theory that hasn't been proven. Once it's proven you can only show that the experiment used to prove it was faulty and in reality it was never proven.
I disagree. The big bang theory aired its last episode months ago. Officially dead.
Tor Hunemark: "The BB Theory is off'cly DEAD!"
You're cruel, you know that?
HC-JAIPUR (13/08/2019)
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😂
Lol
Jesus loves you
Thank fuck for that.
@@hiltonchapman4844 Cruel? Not really, when you're talking about an expired sitcom.
Fred
Many thanks for this insightful video.
Some thoughts that come to mind, What is CMB reflecting off of? If I shined a flashlight into outerspace, I would never see it again unless it reflected off of something. Also isn't it odd that inflation occurs faster than the speed of light? I could have swore some smart guy said that's impossible. And the whole rewinding the universe where all the matter meets at one point (which we conveniently have no idea where that is) isn't that like taking a snapshot of the tide going out and saying the ocean was empty and all of the water came from LA?
Sorry, you only get one question per video. Pick one, and all will be revealed.
@@realitycheck3363 good point,.... ok, only one,
Where does the Sun go at night
@@dougjones3057 Ah, you decided to go for an easy one. Cool. After the sun sets each night, I clean it up a bit, and put it to bed.
I'm also the one that has to wake it up in the morning, and see it gets to work on time. You're welcome.
I don't know enough about the sciences to really chime in, but many have claimed they can debunk the big bang, often with seemingly good explanations, I think it goes without saying, we would love to see someone such as yourself examine and address these claims. Acadamia after all, tends to be reluctant to address anything that doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative.
Because academia has no need to address poorly or unsupported claims. They are busy doing actual work. When those who disagree submit papers for peer review with actual supporting evidence, then academia will give a shit. That's how science works. Put up or shut up.
I like this guy. He’s like a loose thread in my sweater.
So we hold him as you walk away(as you walk away)?
It is interesting to note that Paul Steinhardt, one of the pioneers of inflation cosmology, is now one of inflation's sharpest critics.
The problem with predictive models is that you have to take all of the variables into account.
Only, you cannot know ALL of the variables. Therefore, the best you can hope for is: “We think it started like this, then a miracle happened, and it turned out like this.”.
it seems like the 'projection' team didnt project far enough into the future. Perhaps instead of getting the expansion rate wrong, they got the age of the universe wrong. Perhaps its actually much older than we currently believe.
Did you not hear him say that there is no way scientists got the age of the universe wrong? They are absolutely certain it’s 13.8 billion years.
@@goacoa we have been wrong before. Certainty is a luxury we cannot afford. Especially in cosmology where we know how little we know
@@kadmilossomnium We might have been wrong before about things that we didn't have enough data about. Age of the universe is well established through observation, so again - scientists are CERTAIN (within few million years) that it's 13,8 billion years.
I have never believed in the big bang.
Me neither.
Blindly believing is something I do not do . Not because I'm smart, but because I simply don't.
I don't *believe* in the big bang.
I *know* it happened.
There's undeniable proof, but I'm just wasting my virtual breath explaining stuff to a biological robot that doesn't take in data lol
Kinda like a toaster
A biological toaster
@@m_i_g_5108
Unless you speak as you type, I dont *believe* you are wasting your "breath." The correct term would be time and whatever brain cells you might have.
I don't believe in triangles. I don't need to because they exist without question. The continuous expansion that telescopes see in every possible direction makes it impossible for the big bang to have NOT happened, it's a reality of physics.
There is the Truth and there is science
@@eldritchinterface7481
"A reality of Physics" hahaha... Sorry I don't mean to be rude but there is a reason it's called "The Big Bang THEORY."
Could you do a video on how electricity moves through a circuit at the quantum level? I've heard the energy in a circuit comes from the surrounding quantum field and the battery or generator replaces that energy rather than provides it. If true, that's mind-blowing.
Iam to give you my opinion about electricity by explaning the real true about THE ULTRAVIOLET CATASTROPHY some dude some time ago asked him self why in a bikes dinamo he never could get the violet and blue color? the answer is not that hard wene you know that all systems broken ones are based in orbits by colors, even the atoms obey the rainbows order of colors; OK wene you start to pedal the dinamo begans by absorbing from the out orbit that is red, by doing it violet is gone, now comes orange and blue is vanished, turn for yellow and green is gone, now comes white andyou are in a thin branch of white, white is the neutral in all colors, in the top and bottom pedal the white tryes to fill the emtines of colors but on the strock of the pedal stays in white. this tells me that the energy is supplied by the atoms arround the dinamos magnetic field. By the way blue and violet light ARE NEVER HAVIER THAN WHITE LIGHT as Einstains supposes.
IMHO the problem with the Hubble constant is that it is NOT a constant (over time) .
Nothing to disprove, it was never proved to begin with.
@Zbigniew Modrzejewski At least 60% of stuff attributed to Einstein was done by other people. Their theories and others also past the same tests. Conclusion - nothing has actually been conclusively proved.
@Zbigniew Modrzejewski So you're OK with the BB NOT being science .. ok.
Because a theory that is NOT falsifiable is not science, it is religion.
You can't disprove anything that's been proven. You can only show how the previous experiments produced faulty data. If it's actually proven that's it.
Charles just Charles And science cannot disprove religion. Period
czcams.com/video/DBWcdy2pVdg/video.html
Just throw in some non-baryonic matter or some mysterious force acting upon our universe from a higher dimension. Works every time.
Edit: That was sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but after watching the entire video that's pretty much exactly what it says. ;P
No it only works if there is a pattern whether proven or theoretical. There is a pattern which Dr. Lincoln illustrated even for simple minded people like you. Find the pattern.
There will always be a pattern if you are looking for one. See also: apophenia.
That's not what the video says at all. Did you really watch the whole thing?
I'm sure you heard the mention of the physicist who wrote that book in Sadhguru video. He's being consulted by major institutions including AI researchers and Scientific community
Stephen Malturin lmao I love it. Videos like this are like porn for people fantasizing about the universe. “If we bend the conceptual medium known as “space time” we would discover different laws of physics in each theoretical dimension of each universes!” aaaaand boom! That’s SCIENCE. Never go against or question the religion of Scientism!
2:10
"A megaparsec is just 3.3... million... light years."
man... it's just impossible for my brain to even begin to put into perspective such large numbers
we're so tiny
Interesting and nice video. Many thanks.