26 Subatomic Stories: How the Big Bang really happened
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- The term “Big Bang” is often badly misunderstood. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln tries to dispel some common misconceptions about the first moments of the cosmos.
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 4 // 100T vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UkTGSxdCUQw/mqdefault.jpg)
I love getting to listen to Dr. Lincoln weekly
....he’s a kool Kat
haha aye
I am here because I just like to suffer
I have still to chuckle because of the name "quark", as in German, my native language, it means curd cheese. And we are also using it as a derogative word for nonsense or bullshit, Which means, that all baryonic matter is made of humbug -- at least in German.
And the name of the particle may be ultimately derived from the German word, but Murray Gell-Mann, who first proposed the 'quark' theory, took inspiration for the name in a line from 'Finnegans Wake' by James Joyce: "Three quarks for Muster Mark". Particles like protons contain three quarks of three different "color" charges.
@@MikeRosoftJH And in fact, curd cheese was used to make the base for wall colors (together with limestone and ox blood), because the Casein protein in the cheese denaturates while drying and forms a durable coating.
The sound an upper class duck makes!
Same in Dutch, kwark.
origin of the word: www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-origin-of-the-word-quark/
@@chrisdaniels3929
Excellent observation. 😄
The coolness of this guy....
These are the teachers you wanna have.
Don, I really, really want to thank you and Fermilab for making these videos. My sister's learned a lot of physics at a young age from watching these, and says they're very entertaining! Me on the other hand, I come back to them for quick refreshment on old ideas because there's so much information packed in a short about of time. I absolutely love them, please don't stop! Thank you.
Could you share your opinion about the "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" and "Hawking Points," please?
I‘ve been trying to get my head around the whole „the universe is infinite“ thing for 40 plus years. You just lit a candle in the fog. I still can‘t see much but I see better. Thanks!
Pfälzerwald Gumby Me too. But at this point it seems to be the easier concept. I would’ve much more issues understanding if it would NOT be infinite. Would there be a limit? What’s beyond that limit then? I finite seems to be more straightforward and natural to me...
I can imagine a sphere because it is finite. It is not infinite. But I cannot imagine or encompass mentally something that goes on forever and ever without limit or boundary: how can it be possible or make sense?
We don’t know that the universe is infinite, nor can an observation show this result. We only know that space is close to flat and thus it’s possible it is infinite. To know if it’s infinite, we would need a measurement with infinite precision.
Love this thing you do, Don
"thiteen-thirty-seven" lmao 😂. Dr Lincoln, you certainly are.
What is the meaning of this 1337 ?
I don't understand.
1337 is old internet lingo for "leet" or "elite". It was originally "31337" or "eleet" which is basically the opposite of "noob" or "newbie"
Hi Don. Like the CMB for electromagnetism, is there a Cosmic Gravitational Wave Background that we could use to see periods of time different than the one the CMB allow us?
Dr. Lincoln referring to "1337" as "thirteen thirty seven" is pretty much the best thing ever.
I'm sure there's a joke in there but I don't see it. Please explain.
@@jcf20010 it's pronounced "leet" as in "elite" and it's gamer-speak, it's just funny hearing sometime like Dr. Lincoln even bring it up, let alone pronounce it as "thirteen thirty seven" ☺️
@@jcf20010 To extend on OP's explanation; 'leet'-speak is an ancient (in context of the internet) slang used online where characters are replaced with visual facsimiles. So an 'E' becomes a '3', etc. 1337 simply spells out 'leet', short for elite.
@@imadetheuniverse4fun To be fair, leet was a thing long before the term 'gamer' was even opted for PC game enthusiasts. If my memory serves, this was a thing on newsgroups long before even the first Doom released.
I don't know why these kinds of videos don't get millions of subscribers
Actually, the popular ones do. PBS Spacetime has over 2 million subscribers. With almost half a million subs this channel is doing good. Which is a shockingly good result for science related channels. Considering science in most newspapers is in the lowest bottom section, reflecting the interest of the public in it.
Noo I mean that this channel posts videos from a long time but isn't growing as fast as PBS space time
I'm nearly 60 and still had some of these misconceptions, so thanks for the clarity, Don.
You are always the center of your observable universe so there is some truth that the universe revolves around you.
The egocentric cosmology.
Existing around us ≠ revolving around us.
Then again if we were spinning, and we are, it would appear as if the universe is revolving around us. So never mind. Carry on.
Sir plz make a vedio about casimer effect
I second that!
Dr. Lincoln is a Star Trek Fan - awesome! :)
Star Trek has been inspiring for so many people (myself included) - it also promotes the values that any good scientist needs to have: Curiosity, rationality, openness - and a sense of fairness and social responsibility.
Dr. Lincoln and Fermilab (together with many others like PBS Spacetime, 3Blue1Brown etc.) are a great embodiment of those values - they display curiosity, rationality and openness in their scientific practice, and by introducing the public to our understanding of the universe, by doing so basically for free, they contribute to equal access to quality educational material. And thereby, most of all, they inspire those values in others.
I think I can pretty confidently say that Gene Roddenberry, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard and the Federation in general would think of you as a kindred spirit, and would be glad to have you among their ranks.
🖖 Live long and prosper! 🖖
=/\=
Don "Always be cheesin" Lincoln. Those thumbnails make me smile everytime!
Great content. Thank you Fermilab👍
9:58 Why is it 125 types of baryon instead of 35 (which is choose 3 of 5 types with repetition). Is a uud proton a different baryon than a udu proton?
There are three quarks in a baryon. Suppose there were two, left and right. Left could be 5 choices. Right could be 5 choices. Thus there are 5 x 5 = 25 choices. And with three = 5 x 5 x 5 = 125.
@@drdon5205 Actually, are you *sure*? Surely the slots are not numbered, so it should be a combination rather than permutation.
I understand that line of thought, however that math is saying that there are 125 permutations, and out of those 125 permutations there are actually only 35 unique combinations. E.g. to get to 125 you would be counting a uud, proton, a udu proton, and a duu proton as separate different types of proton even though my understanding is that they are classified the same.
My question is if the 125 count includes some double-counting, or if there is actually a particle distinction based on the "order" in which the quarks are chosen.
This might be a moot/irrelevant question based on Dr. Lincoln's followup statement on baryon distinction based on spin and motion.
@@mrbilljoe I stand corrected. A uud and a udu and a duu are all protons.
Just to mess you up even more, you actually do have some different baryons with the same quark compositions -- for instance, Lambda and Sigma(0) are both uds. Hard to find out exactly what the difference is (and you can find similar doublets among the mesons), but I suspect it has to do with which one of the d and s quarks the u quark has its spin aligned with, since Sigma(0) decays rapidly to Lambda by photon emission. And that's before we even get into excited states that decay even more rapidly by emission of mesons.
Dr.Lincoln is giving such a valuable information and contribution to science and thank you for sharing with us
Great tutorial! Good job in educating the public!
I think this is the perfect time to address a higher concept which physics seems to be either avoiding or forgetting: Disparity.
I mean, I hear you guys discussing causality all the time but you always seem to skip disparity i.e. the fact that there is a difference between things. The Big Bang seems to be the point where disparity begins.
That's really the crux of string theory/hyper dimensions. Basically, everything IS the same. It just seems different in our 3 dimensions depending on how they vibrate in the extra dimensions.
@@infectedrainbow That seems a stretch to me.
@@gordianknot5625 I'm not advocating for it. That's what the theory says.
Question: When and where do we post questions that may be eligible for answering? Do I post it on the latest video comments only or can I post my question on some previous video comments or only within and hour or two after release of the latest video or per e-mail only?
Right here.
Hey! Thanks Dr Don to make a video explaining in detail why I don't like the animation of a few videos ago. Well done!
Are there different baryons w/ same quarks but with different color charges? Example protons with ((say) red & blue up qurds & green down quark & all 3 distributions of color charges (red & green or blue & green up quarks). Thanks.
I once read about a theory that the universe created itself because an energy field was below or above its usual value and that dark energy is a way of getting back into its original state. Do we have any ways to prove such a theory and what are you thoughts about that?
Yo tak abat inflation model where Higgs field / inflaton field
@@plutoniumisotope205 Uh it might be that one then :) . I knew there are people who link it to inflation but I couldn't find any reference linking it to the cause of the big bang
Referring to the grid at 3:49 if two observer are resting on two adjacent grid points (sya the opposite corners) and thus there grid coordinates are not changing even though the distance between those gird points is increasing due to the expansion would one seem to have a momentum in respect to the other?
Or said another way, the derivative of D (distance) vs time is non zero and positive but the derivative of a say the grid points vs time would be zero (i.e the grid coordinates are constant. Which derivative would define say momentum, the non zero derivative of the zero derivative one?
Very happy of this explanation of the Big Bang. Not long ago I watched a video where Sean Carroll explained it exactly the same way but I wasn’t sure I had understood it correctly. Thanks dr. Lincoln. 😊👍
Could you possibly further expand your answer on the CMB question? Is it even possible to simply map CMB temperature map to the initial gas density map? What are the hot/cold spots exactly? Are they due to differences in gravitational redshifts (which would apply that colder spots are actually overdense regions) or due to higher initial energies (hot spots are overdense)? If both effects are at play is one of them dominant?
Hello Dr. Don. Do we have any theories on how black holes are formed. Possible explanations or assumptions on their creations
Are there any uses for Lambda, Lambda-Sub or any other baryons other than the neutron and proton? Or do they all decay too quickly?
lol i love how he calls it thirteen-thirty-seven instead saying 1337. _quarky_ sense of humor
Can we really say that there was a 'beginning' to everything? If dark energy is something that grows over time and if it progresses to a Big Rip scenario, where does all that energy go? Can it 'rip open' new matter into the universe?
The Big Rip is my favorite end time hypothesis, but it seems to be the least likely to happen. Also, the Big Rip would just rip all matter apart. The energy would still be there, just more "diluted" in a larger space.
And no, nobody can tell whether there was a beginning to everything. The Big Bang as he explained is basically the start of the expansion of the universe. Not its actual beginning of existence. The most likely scenario is that the "raw matter" of what is todays universe always existed.
busybillyb33 It is a “beginning” in a sense that everything we see today was originated there. In other words, so far we were able observe exactly ZERO things which would’ve NOT been part of the big bang.
Personally, I think the universe is expanding and collapsing.
Black hokes are collapsing and spewing out hawking radiation into the voids of space, on the edge of which galaxies are situated.
I.e. no beginning or end, just as ongoing balance of expansion and collapse
@@maythesciencebewithyou But what would happen once the rate of expansion becomes so big that it starts pulling quarks from each other? We know that if two particles carrying a color charge get too far away from each other, their energy will increase so much that it'll create a quark-antiquark pair; that's why any particle that can be independently observed must be color-neutral. But this newly created particle-antiparticle pair will also get pulled away from each other, increasing their energy even further, and so on - so does that mean that the number of particles and their mass/energy would exponentially increase, solely from the universe's expansion? Could this eventually halt the runaway expansion, at least for a while (namely, for a couple billion years)? Could we call that point the "Big Bang"? And we believe that our universe had during its early stage undergone a stage of runaway expansion, or inflation.
It's intriguing, but it's pretty much nothing but a speculation (and personally, I haven't actually studied particle physics or general relativity). To try to model what would happen at that stage of universe's evolution, we'd need a theory of quantum gravity.
@@MikeRosoftJH That's the Big Rip hypothesis. Most scientists think it's the least likely death scneario of the universe. The universe is growing but we are not. The growth of space is still compensated by the attractive forces that hold us together. The universe isn't expanding fast enough to make our atoms rip apart. The attractive forces are holding together. The expansion isn't even great enough to overcome the gravity within a galaxy and make galaxies break apart.
But if the space were to be expanding quicker than the particles interacting with one another, they'd separate and your every atom would tear apart. And your thoughts might come into play. But the big rip has been ruled out by most physicist it seems.
As far as I know, energy is constant according to Newton, but only in a closed system. Who can say if the universe is a closed system or whether it gets extra energy from somwhere else to grow.
I'm not a physicist either. So take what I say with a grain of salt.
Could the grid size affect some universal constants like the Planck length or speed of causality in the early universe, i.e., before inflation?
Yes and/or no. They either don't change or all change proportionally to each other, which result in no change. 2a/2b = a/b
Interesting. From my education - in the 1990's - I took away the misconception that everything in the entire Universe (visible or not) originated from a singularity. (I think we used to say 'point mass'.) Now I see that this view is not necessarily accurate (or provable). Thanks!
Nah, when you wind back the clock to 0 so that all distances turn to 0 it's still a singularity even if for any t > 0 the space is infinite. Singularity doesn't mean a point, it just means some parameters become infinite.
Hi! How does the big bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics coexist? In that as you go back in time entropy is decreasing, yet go back far enough and you approach a universe in thermal equilibrium; maximum entropy?
I have a question I've tried asking in a few places without any luck so far. My understanding is that eventually only the local group will be observable due to the redshifting of all other bodies as they recede from us, and further that the CMB will be too redshifted to observe. It's also true that as one's frame of reference accelerates towards a source of radiation, which in the case of the CMB would be every direction, that the radiation blue shifts. Would a detector accelerated close to c be able to identify the CMB and thus discover information that would otherwise be invisible in this late era?
It's a good one because my assumption would be that, by definition, CMB should not depend on the frame of reference at all. After all no frame of reference should be special like that. But I can't see *how* this can be.
3:30: nice example, but... the dots (galaxies) inside the visible universe do move accordingly???
I don't think they do. And there is also some confusion of galaxies outside the visible universe moving accordingly.
First of all, the expansion of space should accelerate as time goes on. In this animation it doesn't.
I always had a mental image of a grid on an "inflating balloon", with a couple of small people drawn on it looking at each other, and imagined that their perception of each other really wouldn't change over time. But your "globe" image is much clearer, thanks!
It's the same image
Thank you for sharing.
I would like a small segment about your t-shirt in each episode.
Hey sir , I have a question that the mass of the universe which we measure is of the visible universe or the entire universe ?
Visible
Hi, Doc. A question, if I may. As we see the sun, not as it is now, but as it was 8 minutes ago, what's the process that allows us to continue seeing it?
Enjoy these videos..Have you done anything on the theories that describe what a singularity actually is.? Theories like "Plank Stars"?
A singularity is a mathematical error. A singularity never physically exists. It just means your mathematics broke for some reason at a specific place and time in your chosen coordinate system.
@@cloudpoint0 Yeah I understand that its a mathematical construct..But what do we hypothesize is really at the center of a black hole? Our known physics breaks down here.
@@mdavid1955
Black holes are often shown as funnels with the depth of the funnel narrowing in the time direction. That is, a black hole is a spatial sphere of vacuum that becomes a funnel or a vortex when time is added to the picture. If General Relativity is correct, the singularity is really a direction that takes in-falling energy into the far future to be radiated away from empty space as the black hole slowly evaporates. A black hole truly is a hole - in time. Well maybe!
We do know mathematically that objects that fall inside a black hole must eventually travel at multiples of the speed of light relative to outside space (not relative to inside space though). And we know that traveling near the speed of light means outside time passes rapidly for the traveler. So a very fast trip into the distant future seems a plausible result of an internal singularity trip, at least for your former particles that become just radiation as you fantastically speed up. Keep in mind that rotating black holes don't have a point singularity, they are just a vortex with a ringularity.
Is chemistry with atypical baryons and leptons ( other than proton, neutron, electron) possible?
Yes. It even flirts with nuclear reactions. Muon-catalyzed fusion is an example of this sort of atypical chemistry leading to a nuclear reaction.
How is the CMB constant when we are moving through the universe? Is it a forward facing image of one part of our sky or a 360 pan of everything?
I'm assuming you're talking about the images we have of the cosmic microwave background radiation. If so, that image is a 360° representation put on a two-dimensional plane so that we can see it all at once..
Hello Dr Don..
Nice stuff goin on..thanks.
A question about the expansion of space..does space expand in the absence of any matter or energy? Or any empty space just expands?
An atom has a lot of empty space in it..does that expand?
The electromagnetic forces that hold the atom together are far stronger than expansion.
@@michaelsommers2356
So the expansion of space is effective only when there is no sufficient binding energy..like places where even gravity is too low to counter. So lesser the gravity greater the rate of expansion...so another question would be y does this have to happen?
@@kschannel.1 Space is expanding, but gravity and so forth keep things from moving apart. The Hubble constant is about 70 km per sec per megaparsec, so something a megaparsec (3 million light years) is moving away at 70 km per sec. It is easy to calculate what that means at a distance of one meter: about the width of a proton per second, or about one meter in 10 million years. At least, that is my understanding.
Sir.how colour force between quarks is directly proportional to distance ... ...
Is there one more new froce partical....
nothing like listening to some dr don lincoln and hitting the bong in the morning
do you also feel like weed helps make science more fun/interesting?!
Sheeeeit
I don't know if this is the right video to ask this question regarding LIGO's observation of gravitational waves (GWs). As I understand GWs stretch/compress space which changes the length between two perpendicular paths of light. This is detected by the interference of the ight beams. Since light itself travels through space, shouldn't light be stretched or compressed exactly how the perpendicular arms of LIGO are stretched/compressed? Wouldn't this cancel the interference that's supposed to happen?
Q: Why is there a red shift no matter which direction we look?
A: Because it's all downhill from here.
Lol, good one!
I am glad he addressed the misconceptions about the Big Bang. This video should be mandatory viewing for every one interested in science, especially science teachers, and those who still use those explosion animations to depict the Big Bang.
What he did not mention, and I wish he had, is that the term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize a theory which he disliked. He says he used the term to help radio listeners visualize what the beginning of the expanding universe was like. According to Hoyle, it was not meant to be a pejorative.
Somehow, it caught on, and people who heard it misunderstood, and though it meant the Universe started with a big explosion. Even programs like those presented by NOVA use animations depicting explosions, some even go so far as to add the explosion sounds. Like Dr. Don, I too thought the Big Bang was a big explosion for many years, until I learned otherwise.
You can read about Fred Hoyle and the etymology of the name at this site:
academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/54/2/2.28/302975
As a side note. While in graduate school, I decided to explore the ideas of the steady state theory and wrote a paper about the theories and supporting research. There were several research papers published in refereed journals that presented evidence that purported to prove the red shift was not due to the expansion of the universe but could be explained by other phenomena.
Wayne Y. Adams
Is there anything like beta decay but for top quarks? Like, could you take a quark that was already in a baryon and hit it with something so it changes flavor?
So far, I've only seen images of CMB maps. Wouldn't it make sense, couldn't it lead to some supplementary discoveries to monitor it over a period of time in the form of a timelapse or even a video?
If yes, what discoveries would you expect to be made?
Nice thinking... Should have been happened, yes. Unlikely that someone saw it, but - yes?
Can you explain the interaction (repulsion and attraction) of the quarks and gluons through quantum color
Look up the strong nuclear force.
For me the most confusing aspect of Big Bang is that it happened everywhere at once, and there is no place of 'origin' for the Big Bang, no center of the universe. Unlike with an expanding sphere, where you can easily pinpoint the center.
Brian Greene talks about repulsive gravity when uniform energy resides in a specific location in space. The way he was describing it makes it seem like it might not of been the entire universe, but instead only localized to what now is the observable universe. I think that it's probably pretty hard to say anything about how it affected the unobservable parts of the universe with any certainty.
That's just a problem of our vintage point. Everybody is the center of his observable bubble of the universe. That's because in any direction you look, there is a set distance that can be observed. The problem is that we do not know whether the universe is infinite or finite. As he said, the entire universe has to be at least many times larger than our observable sphere. If the universe is really infinite, then it really isn't possible to determine a center. However, if the universe is finite, and not just finite, but actually a sphere and no other shape, then the universe would indeed have an actual center. But that center is unlikely to be earth. The big bang has no center of origin, in the sense that space is expanding at every point in space. At least you can tell yourself, that you are the center of your observable universe.
Rykehuss Imagine it as the surface of the balloon to make it less confusing. The surface doesn’t have a center point either, yet it expands from a near-zero size.
(Just for clarification: in this example we are talking about ONLY the surface, and nothing is under or over the surface.)
@@maythesciencebewithyou Even in a finite universe, every point would be at the center. Let's not forget the universe is 4-dimensional spacetime. A center would need to be an event (x,y,z,t) and not a point (x,y,z). A point (x,y,z) in a finite 4-D universe would be like a latitude & longitude on the surface of a finite 3D globe. Relative to the surface of the globe, every point (x,y) can be considered at the ''center'' of the 2D surface. To find a center inside the 3D globe, you need to add ''z''. Having this said, an infinite universe in ''size'' would require it to be infinite in ''time too''. Just like an infinite sphere would require an infinite radius. In that case, there would be no event center (x,y,z,t) either. The center could therefore be conceptually interpreted as relative to the observer and not absolute. Like ''left & right'' are relative (no political pun intended).
Hi Don, I have a question regarding the finiteness of the universe. From your explanation I got the impression that the only way for the universe to be finite is that it has to be in the shape of the surface of a 4-D Hypersphere. Does cosmology not allow for flat universes finite in size? Thank you and keep up the good work!
bumlic They hypothesis of closed universe is mostly ruled out. As far as we see, the universe is flat.
But if it is both flat AND finite, then there must be an edge. And then what’s beyond the edge?
Related idea: bubble universes.
It could also be a Hypertorus and a bunch of other hyper shapes too if it is a closed finite volume. I suppose a 4-D Hypersphere or whatever could contain within it a 3-D flat but infinite universe, so one doesn't rule out the other. But I concur with Zoltan.
I love this channel!
Could colour confinement be a mechanism for expansional energy to matter conversion during the big rip scenario spontaneously creating matter everywhere at once akin to a "big bang"?
As the quarks are pulled apart, the strong force(i think) gets stronger as they are pulled apart eventually to the point that the very energy put in spontaneously creates another quark pair.
sir you say that the life time of top quark is smaller thsn the baryons assemble time but if the top quark is moving so fast that it life time increases in that case can the baryon with top quark can form or not .🤔🤔
I sometimes hear you say about physicists trying to derive this or that from "first principles".
What exactly does that mean?
Thanks!
It means starting with essentially zero assumptions.
Is it possible that universe 1 and 0 in the same time like quantum computer or complex theory?
thanks Dr Lincoln good video
What causes baryons to form within that time frame? Does it involve particle exchange? And why does the top quark decay so quickly?
For that matter, why do the fermions and bosons have _any_ of the properties they do? All good questions. No good answers yet.
Dear Dr.Lincoln,
I heard of the planck time being the time that it took the universe the expand over the planck length. I believe that is based on the "one-point" big bang model. Is planck time applicable to the "infinite universe" big bang? Also, what made the universe expand, if not enthropy? Can enthropy even exist in an infinite volume of energy?
Did the CMB start out in the gamma wave length and decay to the microwave length and if so did it at sometime pass through the visible wave length to get to the microwave length??
Yes and yes. I think it was around 300 000 years after the big bang that the universe became transparent, you could actually see stuff.
@@rykehuss3435 thats awesome. Thanks for the information. Is this referring to recombination or after recombination.
Matthew Dunsmuir After photon decoupling, which is closely related to recombination
@@rykehuss3435 Thanks for clearing that up for me it was confusing me.
Sir, can you please explain about fynman diagrams?
th-cam.com/video/hk1cOffTgdk/w-d-xo.html
Hi Don, I have a question for you.
1-Talking about the begining of Time may have no sense because the inmense gravity of all the known universe make the time go infinitely slow...
Or
2-The Higgs field doesn"t apply at the begining (because of the "sombrero" shape of the way the Higgs behaves), so the Time existed but when the Higgs started to act, the time suddenly run slower because of gravity, and was speeding up until the gravitational pull was negible.
Which one is right?, 1, 2 or ... n?
I love Subatomic Stories, thanks
Thanks Dr. Lincoln for reinforcing my view of the "Big Bang"!
Can you talk about theories of determinism and how that relates to quantum uncertainty/radioactive decay?
Is there a wavefunction associated with CMBR?
How do we calculate does numbers in the magnitude of 10^-25? I'm pretty sure we don't have instruments with that level of accuracy?
Calculations are not measurements.
Hi Dr. Lincoln, thanks for once again a fantastic video. Do you happen to know Harald Lesch? He's a professor of astrophysics and also produces a lot of YoutTube content similar to what you produce. I would really love to see a collaboration video between you two - I bet it would be fantastic content and as a nice side effect, you both could pick up a lot of viewers off each other!
So the grid spacings at time zero were zero but the grid extent was still infinite? The spacings represent distance, correct?
thats how I understood it, pretty difficult to conceptualize
Hey Dr. DON , was wandering if you ever thought about using a accelerator to measure how fast a space ship is traveling?
I wanted to know what published paper is there about the bigbang and to study the observation we made and have to came about this conclusion ??
There's an entire Internet full of that information. Google is your friend.
@@kenlogsdon7095 it's hard to find any good scientific papers on it ... Mostly it's just opinions of people and scientists and their interpretation
Is dune experiment is still under building process
I have always wondered about that myself. Thanks Dr. Don for explaining that concept & the visual example as well! Perhaps they should rename it "The Big Event" or "The Big Expansion" instead. 👍👍😉😉
Yeah, the term Big Bang was originally coined by a critic of the theory and later was just generally accepted.
I have one major question. Why we have all experimental data about expansion by our modern telescopes and we still not able to calculate the size of the entire universe? And will we be ever able to?
some of the universe is outside of Our light cone , which means no signal or knowledge from those parts can ever reach us,
@Dr Deuteron You may want to have a look at this: arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087
Amazing answers, thank you all! I love science. 💕 But still, we need more time.
I have a question. We know the universe was quite uniform shortly after the big bang. But, just how non-uniform a universe can be for the big bang theory to still work (ie. guarantee expanding universe)?
Hypothetically, if the universe had a gradient, could it be that some regions will expand forever, while others will crunch? How would the transition between those two regions look like? Would the crunched regions simply be (primordial) black holes?
The multiverse theory allows for different expanding regions of the cosmos. In other words, different places are expanding in different rates. That's kind of what the multiverse is all about. as far as primordial black holes go, they would be formed in a different manner and really don't apply to what you were thinking about ingredient in an expanding universe.
Sir I have questions-
1. as we all know that quantum fluctuations are everywhere in space. Does that mean space can't exist without the energy or can we say where there is space there has to be energy.
2. In lots of videos and articles it is mentioned that there was no space before the big bang. How is this even possible?
Where there is space there has to be energy (a very slight variation in position and momentum) because of HUP. Otherwise particles could be exactly localized in violation of HUP.
Perhaps the observable universe had no space before the big bang because it was very small, but the modern thinking is that the entire universe (meaning all of empty space before any matter existed) is infinite in one sense or another. Infinite space is the opposite of no space.
the creation of the universe can also be described as the splitting and fusing of other universes. but we can not explain why there was nothing before the bang as we don't know
What does it mean (a particle has no size) and can the be proven by an experement
For the Shockwave scenario - If we are in a pocket universe, and the Inflaton field collapsed locally and spread outward (or not) then only a local area (a very large area, but not infinite) contains matter and energy (and a now reduced or zero Inflaton field) as opposed to a much higher Inflaton field outside our pocket universe.
So why wouldn't there be a boundary between "full strength Inflaton" vs "Collapsed Inflaton"?
Dr Lincoln You are a very good educator. I thank you for all the work you do to educate us in physics.
If the unseen universe is infinite that any point is the center including the earth. What we know can ONLY be said about the visible universe. We have no data or proof about the invisible universe and therefore cannot make any conclusions. It may be "125million times larger" or not. Please stick with proven knowns until the data shows us what is.
From what I have learned is within the very first second of the universe and not until later within the first second within Planck time measurements, there was no matter until the universe cooled down to 2 trillion degrees is when the strong force started to bind the quarks together in protons and neutrons that produced the first matter, while other subatomic particles were interacting within the Higgs field and later gaining mass. It still took 380 thousand years for the very first atoms to come into being and hundreds of millions of years after the big bang stars and galaxies came into existence.
What holds quarks together inside proton/neutron? In essence, whats makes the "surface" of neutron?
Strong interaction via gluons keeps quarks together
@@rykehuss3435 Thats common knowledge. What observation has been done about gluons? Gluons are the "box" that holds quarks together? How? Or gluons are just plaster to cover missing knowledge?
czarek cz You can read about gluon observations here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations
Hi. If a weak boson turn up quark to down quark of a neutron. What happens?
The virgin mary pops out
My question is that is there a way to cancel the doppler effect and see what is behind the observable universe, is anyone working on this to see if there is any method like that...
If the entire universe was extremely small at the big bang, how is it that light from the early universe is just reaching us now? Wouldn't it have already "gone past" us?
Wow finally cleared my understanding of Big Bang. Quick question if universe is 125 mil time s bigger than visible then galaxies at 125 mil times must be at infinite speed of expansion? Is there chance that theory of speeding expansion is wrong ?
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
Sir , when we introduced the concept of dark matter , we meant to fill in the missing mass of the universe but if we think that the universe is also constantly moving and due to which it would then be having a relativistic mass which we are measuring and if that happens then there would be no hope for the dark matter or any other stuffs ..........
Thank you, I got it right after all more than a decade ago, but so many bad explanations floating around have been making me confused and question my understanding.
thank you Dr
How do you measure a time span as fast as 10^-25 seconds?
Was there a moment when the wavelength of CMB was in visible light interval, making it detectable by eye (if one had really strong eyes)?
Yes. Recombination happened about 3000k, same 3000k as on light bulbs aka orange. Prior to that, the energy in the photons was too much to let electrons stick to protons. This is why we can't see "past" the CMB, because all of those free electrons were causing photons to bounce all over, like a fog. It wasn't a thick fog. It was something along the lines of a photon could only travel about 100 light years, or there about, before hitting an electron. From that perspective, we'd be able to see nearly all of the stars in our sky with our eyes. But over galactic scales, it turns into an impenetrable fog. The exact numbers aren't perfect, but the idea should be correct.
I assume the luminosity would be off the charts. Essentially very point in the sky would be sending photons at you. To put that into perspective, the sun only covers a small portion of the sky and it's very bright. I could be very wrong with this, I am a layman making mildly educated guesses.
I have a main but simple Astrophysics question. What is our referring system for the measurement of the expansion of the Universe?
If matter have different states i.e solid, liquid, gas & plasma .. Then what is the state of elementary particles..??
It's a lot of fun content. I also like space and started studying physics.
I've read that before inflation at t= 10**-35 seconds or so the universe was much less than the size of the earth, yet not as small as what might be known as a singularity. Was the type of particles present at that time known, or was it just an indistinguishable plasma of some sort. Was that the densest form of matter possible, and how does it compare in composition and density to that of neutron stars?
Does Dr.Lincoln occasionaly read papers or maybe looks youtube presentation of scientists that have different ideas than the mainstream physicists have?
Thx
Relating to what was discussed in this video on the speed of light and scattering in different media: th-cam.com/video/CUjt36SD3h8/w-d-xo.html, when an electromagnetic wave causes a charged particle to oscillate and emit a new wave of equivalent frequency (energy), from where does the charged particle get the energy to emit a new wave (photon)? Does the original wave lose any energy? How is scattering elastic if a new wave is created such as in Rayleigh Scattering? Is the answer just Noether's Theorem, does is just gain it from the electromagnetic field, or is there something more quantum mechanical at play? Please help.