The birth, life and death of the universe - Public lecture by Dr. Don Lincoln

[@107cdb]

It's amazing that these high quality lectures are provided for free!

[@davidcabreramartinez4892]

And people pay for Netflix

[@guff9567]

You did not listen to that video then

[@animalbird9436]

It's for funding not free

[@noamfinnegan8663]

Hardly free, it's amazing.

[@bennylloyd-willner9667]

@@animalbird9436 well, I didn't pay for it 😁

[@spicynachohaggis7756]

Fantastic lecture, I love listening to Don Lincoln (professor) he explains things so well .thank you .

[@TheWeatherbuff]

I'm sitting here in my nice home office, doing my job of weather forecasting, and listening to Dr. Don. He's such a great explainer and narrator... and very comforting to hear.

[@gabrielh.4583]

The BEST big bang explanation I’ve heard. Your teaching level is incredible Dr. Lincoln👍👍.

[@AnotherGlenn]

I could listen to you all day, Dr. Don! I really wish I could give you a big hug some day for all the amazing intellectual stimulation you have given me. It is priceless. Thank you!

[@guff9567]

Are you deaf and deluded? How could you take that audio quality?

[@spudhead169]

Don for a whole hour? Oh man, how did I miss this one? I could listen to that guy for days.

[@jazznik2]

One of the best science videos I've ever seen! Thank you Mr. Lincoln!

[@yottahertz]

Dr. Don is the greatest lecturer of all time.

[@biniyamabraham2536]

in less than an hour the history and future of the universe explained. Fantastic work.

[@0The0Web0]

This was hands down the best summary/overview I've seen so far. And I've seen a lot. Bravissimo! 👍

[@josephhalwagy6435]

A BIG THANK YOU. WISHING YOU A HEALTHY AND A REWARDING 2023

[@deeiks12]

Great presentation as always, Dr Lincoln!

[@shenidan2023]

Thank you for taking the time to post this. It is fascinating.

[@pawelperkowski1971]

I have read the book (by Dr. Lincoln) entitled "The quantum frontier. The large hadron collider" translated into Polish. A very interesting book. Thank you for this book and your lectures.

[@HzPjtvHYom4991]

This was awesome! I would love to hear more conjecture about the "before". This is where my curiosity is.

[@Bradgilliswhammyman]

big fan of Dr Don, been watching his videos for about 5 years now.

[@guff9567]

Well you did not watch that video, did you?

[@kmccabe3337]

Thank you very much Don and fermilab

[@rahulronaldo6813]

Really a greatest lecture which gave some little deep understanding about the universe. Thank u Don Lincoln 😊 🙏

[@MichelAudran-mo6qo]

Many thanks for this great , very clear and accessible presentation

[@Free_Michael]

Amazing Great thank PhD Don Lincoln You summarized all I have read about the world in a very interesting video ❤❤❤

[@datsel]

This was a fantastic lecture, thanks!

[@milankumarmukherjee1662]

A great video... So simply the intricate topics have been discussed... Amazing...

[@afaqueanzar1323]

This is my favourite topic.

[@rayhetherington1296]

Thank you so much, this was a fascinating and accessible lecture.

[@OAK-808]

Excellent lecture. Thank you very much

[@thomasstrawser8095]

Dr. Lincoln, we need weekly videos sir.........

[@pepe6666]

Wow I really needed that. That cleared a lot of things up

[@paulbk7810]

Steven Weinberg's book "The First Three Minutes" ---- "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." While likely true, a pointless universe is so unsatisfying from a human perspective. To think all this fuss --- the bang, inflation, CMB, the Pleistocene, The Beatles --- is for what? I like to think a pointless universe does not equal a pointless life. Well done, Dr. Lincoln fyi.. My dob = 1948. I was a reactor operator on ballistic missile nuclear submarine, 1968-74. Born with geek birth defect, compulsively curious.

[@garrethenderson9695]

This channel is great. Thanks for making this entertaining video.

[@jdfirestorm]

A fantastic lecture and dr. Lincoln is thé best in translating this in a way us earthling can more or less understand these things

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Retired BNL AGS RHIC guy here. Excellent 👍

[@9du4ze2]

thank you , beautiful lecture

[@anaryl]

Oh man! I loved watching his course on Gc+ before bed, but it got to the point where I had almost memorised them. Can't wait.

[@russelldavis2456]

Thank you all at Fermilab.

[@Mysoi123]

Great lecture and good to see you again Dr. Don Lincoln! At 5:02 I think the fact that there are 17 building blocks on the list and only 4 of them are stable and important for life is a very good sign that we don't live in a simulation universe after all!

[@jamescollier3]

how so?

[@clemlo4973]

How so?

[@tonywells6990]

Yes, just another crazy idea with no evidence.

[@guff9567]

Stop pretending you actually listened to that

[@Mysoi123]

@@guff9567 stop pretending that you got the evidence that I didn’t.

[@louisscott471]

Don, Wow. Your clarity of exposition is a joy. You mention the scale from proton size to the solar system during inflation. It would be nice if the slides continued to offer scale as time goes to CMB. When is it grapefruit size? Your only fault here, no t-shirt. I come for the lectures, but take great pleasure in the t-shirts. (That little guy is you isn't it?)

[@satchell78]

If it were possible to observe the time before 10^-36 to 10^-13 would it go from really slow speeding up or just really fast? If slow and speeding up what's relative to alter the flow of time for the observer? Less space = 1 second is longer, more space = 1 second is shorter? Or in this case is time constant?

[@OthamJohn]

Thank goodness I watched all your other Fremilab YT videos first. It all sort of makes sense until I step away from the screen.

[@StarCh33se]

Great lecture! Really informative and fun.

[@HeathcliffBlair]

Excellent talk. Thanks.

[@a.lewisraymer7772]

Huzza, Huzza! That was terrific!

[@freddan6fly]

Great video Don, thank you very much.

[@keithreynolds3801]

Excellent. I am unable to say anything other than EXCELLENT

[@jimc.goodfellas]

Dr Don is great

[@ws6500hp]

Just excellent!

[@Life_42]

Thank you for sharing! I love FermiLab!

[@Habading]

Thank you Dr Don!

[@cheesypotat0es]

Dr. Lincoln is a great narrator.

[@guff9567]

Pity he does not proof-listen to his audio quality

[@kennethhicks2113]

Good to watch your lecture Don, Happy New Year.

[@TheIceMan9304]

I love this channel!

[@DavidMcMahon100]

Thank you! Great presentation! One thing I totally agree with: Scientists are BRAVE!

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

50:41 specific theory vs broader idea MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF THIS VIDEO!

[@kevinICdesigner1]

Very good lecture

[@willardmiller7512]

Very good. Really enjoyed.

[@thekonstantine9]

I like the way we are still able to discover something interesting and new about gravity and perhaps also before 14 billion years ago.

[@ulrichgorlich6292]

Great! Thank you.

[@moodiblues2]

Your diagram of birth of the universe is just how I surmised it when was first made aware of black holes: Ever since I learned about black holes and the big bang I wondered if the big bang was the product of a black hole in another universe in a multiverse. I felt that this would solve two problems. 1. there’s no need to theorize a singularity and 2. This would solve the issue of the loss of information in a black hole. Please, people who know so much more than I about cosmology and physics set me straight.

[@sapelesteve]

Terrific lecture Dr. Don! I have watched many of your YT videos where you talked about various topics related to what you discussed in this video. Always fascinating & enjoyable to watch! 👍👍💥💥

[@guff9567]

So you like miserable audio?

[@WilbertLek]

It's amazing that these videos are filled to the brim with people who will watch but not listen.... We also call them "gods-believers".

[@GordDavison]

Thanks!

[@jupiter604]

Dr. Don! ❤

[@seanmcdonough8815]

My man D Lincoln Got me deep think'n

[@benjaminbeard3736]

I'm glad I watched the video now. I didn't realize this whole time I had the CMB wrong. I thought the hotter spots were the denser spots.

[@hosepdeyrmenjian8556]

Great job, appreciate your time and dedication, refreshing summary of many of your KZbin posts

[@jaydunstan1618]

Wonderful.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks Don, wonderful lecture. It seems to me we need to look at these issues in a different way, that is why there should be nothing, that is nothing at all, when we know from our everyday experience that something is the dominant reality. From this I think that we can conclude that as observed in quantum mechanics, absolutely nothing is an unstable state of affairs that eventually decays to something. At some distant point in the future, time and space will become so dilute as to be meaningless, thus setting the stage for a further moment of instability.

[@mitseraffej5812]

Isn’t this the basic notion of Roger Penrose’s proposition of a cyclic and geometrically conformal universe. My thoroughly unfounded notion is that the Universe in it’s entirety is both infinitely large,infinitely old and on average infinitely dense. Our corner of this external and infinite universe we know as the observable universe ( and from what Dr Lincoln said probably extends beyond our horizon) is just a phase change of sorts in this infinitely large and eternal universe. Similar and/or totally different phase changes have occurred an infinite number of times in the past and will continue for eternity into the future, but as the universe in its entirety is infinite in both size and age the process can and will continue for eternity. Why do I think this? An alien told me when I was abducted.

[@aurelienyonrac]

Question. How long does it take for spacetime to start? Lol. It is instantaneous.😅

[@aurelienyonrac]

​@@mitseraffej5812yes . pretty good. So in 13 .7 bilion years people will look back to our niw and say. Waw. That was the big bang and they never knew. Sa said befor the big bang is now

[@jimgraham6722]

@@aurelienyonrac The evidence seems to suggest that by our present reckoning inflation was near instantaneous, but the precursor event to inflation may have persisted, by present reckoning, for a vast period of time, although by the reckoning of that era, it might have been near instantaneous. Such anomalies get thrown up lot of the time in relativity. For example to an outside observer someone falling into a black hole appears frozen in time, however, to the person doing the falling it is all over near instantaneously.

[@MacsMachines]

Many thanks for the sharing this it’s amazing to consider…One question please Dom/ Fermilab team, are atoms/their sub-atomic particles true ‘perpetual motion machines’? Most atoms are ancient (as I understand it anyway) but each clearly have internal structures that have constant movements/fluctuations in a universe that contains magnetic fields, gravity etc that act at least on some parts of them…so are they are doing ‘work’ as such? If so, what’s fuelling their internal sub-atomic particles/fields to keep moving for so so long? And will one day will they eventually lose their energy and change or are they getting it constantly topped up (eg by dark energy)?

[@hrvojebartulovic7870]

2500 years since Babilonians we surely came a long distance: this is a far wilder story than any Babilonian priest might have imagined!!!!!!!!!!!!!¡!

[@spaceinyourface]

We love Don. He's a boss. ❤ & don't tell his Mum ,,he was part of the team ,,it was all him. ... Don knows !! 👌

[@guff9567]

So many comments from people who clearly never sat through that gruesome audio

[@spaceinyourface]

@@guff9567 how do you expect me to understand your mumbo jumbo ???

[@guff9567]

@@spaceinyourface Thank you. Now corrected

[@cliffs1965]

Wow from that inro Dr. Lincoln does so much. Is he a Heisenberg human? When we see him on KZbin, we don't know how much stuff he's doing. And when he's doing stuff, we can't see him on KZbin.

[@HzPjtvHYom4991]

I live for this stuff!!! Or, perhaps even better - I live 'because of this stuff'! 😄

[@coconutz247]

don't know if it's all correct, but the explanation is well done. a good one! not so fast.....one thing you smart guys keep telling us is there is no center of the universe. then how do you explain the CMB in your depiction as a globe? if space itself expands and the universe gets bigger, logic would tell us there is an edge. that means one edge is on the other side of the other edge. so what's in the middle?

[@Games_and_Music]

53:24 When speaking about the size of the visible Universe: "If i made it as small as it was, it wouldn't be visible." --Dr. Don Lincoln. Was that your impression of Yogi Berra?

[@daveac]

Expansion? Dark Energy? Multiverse? - Well, you certainly expanded my Grey Matter at least :-)

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@kricketflyd111]

Finally, I can agree to disagree with you. I liked this one. 👀

[@PANAGIOTIS_KORKODELAKIS]

Greetings from Greece

[@blackshard641]

19:35 Question.... we know that sound waves travel faster in a denser medium. If we were to conjecture that space itself has a density, and that density was greater toward the big bang, it seems like this gives us a justification for thinking that maybe c has changed over time. If c was faster, wouldn't this account for the universe's smoothness during this early timeframe, and give the appearance of a sudden, rapid expansion? Would this not also potentially answer questions like the Hubble tension and Dark Energy? I assume it's possible to make the math work, but is there any sense in which we could test this?

[@tonywells6990]

The speed of light slows down in a denser medium due to interactions with charged particles, but the speed of light in a vacuum has always been a constant. There is no evidence that space has a changing density of its own, apart from dark energy which has a constant density as far as we know. Of course it could have had different properties in the first 10^-32 seconds or maybe the first 10^-44 seconds, but after that we know (from all observations so far) these things were constants.

[@cloudpoint0]

Sound is a mechanical transmission and doesn't travel in a vacuum. Light is an electromagnetic transmission. Each follows its own rules.

[@trevorpsy]

I'm confused by calling gravity a "force." Isn't a manifestation of the effect of warped space has on an object? Is in accurate to think of this interaction as a force?

[@playeryale]

"Dark energy is a repulsive form of gravity and that means it's disgusting." Got it, Dr. Don. 😆

[@stephenbeeson-hurston5859]

Do we not need to play the evolution of the universe forward as a function of distance to us in order to see what the universe actually looks like at this instant of the present moment if looking deeper and deeper into distant space is equivalent to looking back in time?

[@omsingharjit]

42:30 .... rip apart Earth , Atom ? But what about the level of Quarks ?? It can't rip a part without making its new pairs . so doesn't it Violates the Conservation of Mass ? I always asks this question to others on KZbin .

[@ThunderChickenBucket]

Love it

[@dnswhh7382]

I think, the CCC Theory of Roger Penrose provides some pretty reasonable explanations for what might have been before the big bang and what our future looks like. Would be very interesting to hear Mr Lincolns view on this as well!

[@aurelienyonrac]

Well, every black hole is a univers and we live in a black hole. Try to picture that. You are the center of the big bang. Just like everything els. So its okay to mess up. Becaus we are not finished. We are infinit.😅

[@dnswhh7382]

@@aurelienyonrac „is“ is a pretty strong word for a theory which can probably never be proven... I however agree it‘s ok to mess up, as long as we try to be friendly.

[@csabanagy8071]

I still have a feeling we are looking toward an event horizon in time. As we are watching back towards the beginning of our universe the meaning of time become fuzzier. The fact is the universe spent in a specific phase is extrapolated to our present time and it is not considered that how "fast" the time locally elapse in that condition. More over at the beginning of the universe there was no time as we are experiencing it now. The future and past was just equal. Something must have changed what broke the time symmetry and cased the inflation of time and space.

[@joebledsoe257]

Yogi also said "It ain't over till its over" Kind of a dark statement.

[@jayski9410]

Everytime I hear a lecture like this describing how the building blocks of the universe came into being, I can't help but wonder if the same evolution happens with dimensions? Right now we live in a 3D universe but in the beginning it was one dimension, a point? But looking forward maybe more dimensions will snap into existence with expansion?

[@chlodnia]

We care Sir

[@philippedomeneghetti2017]

Bravo , c'est limpide .

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

Genuine question, if you are inside of a very large gravity well, a galaxy perhaps, and you are looking out at a steadily expanding universe, not one that is expanding faster, but at a steady rate, wouldnt it appear to be expanding faster the further away you looked from your point of view due to time dilation, even though it isn't? I'm sure the math in my scenario doesn't correlate with what we see and can easily explain away my question. But it was a fleeting thought while listening to the lecture and made me curious, but not curious enough to stop what I'm doing an do the math myself.

[@TheM0JEC]

Yes, stuff that is further away is moving away faster. That is space expanding. Would also be true in a steady speed expansion. Any expansion of space will give this effect.

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

​@TheM0JEC I understand the effect dark energy is said to have on the expansion of space. My question has more to do with whether the effects of time dilation within our galaxy's gravity well would give the appearance of a universe that's expansion is speeding up, but without needing dark energy as a cause for it. My assumption is that the math that suggests dark energy's existence, already accounts for gravity's effect on what we see. But I was still curious none the less.

[@cloudpoint0]

​@@NG-VQ37VHR If the universe is expanding at a steady rate we would measure the expansion rate as the same no matter how far away we look. We see faster rates far away because of dark energy acceleration. I don't think time dilation matters since length contraction conspires to cancel out the effect but I'm exceeding my pay grade a bit on this last point.

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

​@cloudpoint think about your perspective if you are within the event horizon or gravity well of a black hole. The outside universe appears to rapidly accelerate in time. Things closer to you that are experiencing more of the black holes gravity, but not as much as you, will appear to accelerate through time slower than things further away, but still faster than you. If everything is expanding at a constant rate, then these gravitational effects will cause the expansion rate to appear to be faster the further you look. No dark energy needed. The same effects would apply to the gravity well of a galaxy, just not as exaggerated. Again, I'm not arguing against dark energy. It's just something that popped into my head yesterday and have never heard explained.

[@cloudpoint0]

@NG Now you are discussing acceleration not expansion. That complicates the story. They're not the same.

[@chestercurtis7548]

The CMB is still a curiosity to me. Is it the current kinetic energy of all of the remnant particles of the "big bang" that have not to this point coalesced into stars? If you think of it as a travelling wavefront, then the only way that we could now see it is if it reflected back from the "edge" of our expanding universe. This seems unlikely since other Fermilab channel lectures put the diameter at some hundreds of billions of light years in diameter so a reflection could not reach us. If it is particle kinetics, then how can we ever expect to see the primordial neutrinos since they would not have interacted like the "interacting elementary particles" and would all be out there somewhere at that 100 billion+ year radius? A comment beyond this, Dr. Lincoln said that the Higgs field was known to have come into existence (or something to that effect) at 10e-13 seconds. I have yet to see any literature or lecture that says that the "fields" of quantum field theory actually exist. It is a theory. Has any laboratory experiment observed these quantized fields for any of the known elementary particles? It could just as easily be theorized that there is a quantum ether with resonances corresponding to the particles. Find the highest frequency/energy and then determine which subharmonic each of the elementary particles represents.

[@rcrix8379]

A refreshing honesty burst in contrast to British Brian Cox who always claim’s we know everything with certainty

[@oidbio2565]

Pre-Planck time: can’t we explain this by the absence of a space-time frame? Speed of light is not max if referencing movement from multiple time frames “emanating” from big bang point. Similar to current understanding of black holes which are able to mess with time frames

[@antoniomonteiro3698]

I'm at 12:00 and this reminds me a book I bought new close to 50 years, the difference, as I remember, it the use here of paternalistic analogies, excuses, explanations of the explanations, and telling what it's going to be told - just get on with it... the book? "The Collapsing Universe" by Issac Asimov. Let's continue... finally ar 12:20 we can hear: "So let's start"... :)

[@clemlo4973]

People like u are way more Amazing than billionaire. Kid should've Dream to grow like u. Thank u for all u done for us, human globally, through ure lab work and for common people understanding on top of it.

[@tanujsaaraswat7810]

Does the "law of conservation of energy" apply to the Universe from "time zero" onwards (keeping in mind, mass-energy equivalence)? In other words, has the total mass-energy of the Universe been the same since the Big Bang? If that is the case(which I believe is what physics tells us), then all we know is that the mass-energy is evolving BUT we don't know from where and how it all came to be

[@edstud1]

Where did the "stuff" that made the universe come from?

[@chuckgrigsby9664]

Why do we seem to have a balance of electrical charge in the universe? As far as I can tell, (and confining myself to matter rather than anti-matter), negative electrical charge is carried by leptons and positive electrical charge is carried by fermions. I get the notion that positive and negative charges balance between matter and anti-matter particles of the same mass, but I don't see how we get charge balance between electrons and protons. Are there big pockets of charge sitting out in the universe? If not, how do we get to an overall electrically neutral universe? I can see a way, but I've never heard anyone suggest it. That way is that electrons and protons are all created by decaying neutrons. However, I've never heard anyone suggest that only neutrons were created from the original quark soup. Temperature in our common experience is a property of matter. However, temperatures in the early universe are higher than is consistent with matter. I suspect that you are using "temperature" to refer to energy density, and the "cooling" you speak about is really the adiabatic expansion of the universe rather than the cooling that results from heat transfer from a hotter to a colder body. Although I didn't frame this as a question, it really is one.

[@Linguae_Music]

Hey look. Fermilab. If you guys want someone to clean up the audio for your videos before you upload them, like taming those ear-peircing vocal sibilances (OUCH) and doing a little bit of dynamics and spectral balancing so its more soothing to the ear... I WILL DO IT FOR FREE. I'm 100% serious :D I am proficient, i give my promise :D Reply, if you want me to ^~^ (If you already have a sound guy... just dont tell him i said that please) P.S. Fantastic video as always ♥

[@michaelkaliski7651]

The visible universe is surrounded by stuff that is presumably the same but is just not visible to us. However by moving around the edges of the visible universe new areas would become visible, while others would disappear. This implies that the material surrounding our visible universe is still exerting gravitational force upon the bits we can see and given how much extra matter is potentially outside our visible universe, it would be logical to assume that our universe would be attracted outwards towards this matter and thus appear to be expanding. Since matter density in our visible part of the universe is dropping as it expands, the acceleration outwards will appear to be increasing. So the energy creating the expansion is not located within our visible universe, but from the mass outside the area(s) that are visible to us. Dark energy, but not in the way that it is currently assumed.