I'm an old guy and i would never have been able to get to this level of cosmology but it don't mean i ain't interested and its great to work through a few of these Lectures. I love that deep field view to feel real small and get to make my head spin. I am an amateur welder and i knew the temps I worked at was about 2400 but i never realized that only a few hundred more degrees more and i would have been working with serious partical physics and getting close to the enviorment of the big bang, thats neat. Any how thanks great program. I feel much smarter and and dizzier andi thank you CHEERS!

@johnnorth5824

3 жыл бұрын

Cosmology/Astronomy has got to be one of the most interesting things to study as a hobby. This is real life! And yeah the hubble deep field and ultra deep field image make me feel super small as well.

@richardvisser3348

2 жыл бұрын

L

Thank you, Fermilab.

thank you for uploading these videos!

Really impressed with Fermilab's frequency of posting videos and their content too.

@kinarkhar

3 жыл бұрын

We are so lucky

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Their videos actually do very little to teach physics. They should be posting lecture series with lotsa math if they were actually interested in teaching physics to the masses.

@harshitarora8565

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 I agree, but still sometimes it is good to learn physics without a lot of mathematical rigour. If you want, you can see videos posted by Stanford University which include lectures by Leonard Suskind on relativity.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@harshitarora8565 Thank you. Sadly, I have already watched most of Stanford's videos. Fermilab, being experimentalists, should do the same for experimental physics, detailing the sensors, and the degree of precision needed to make a claim, with mathematical rigor. Physics channels with no math are a dime a dozen here on youtube. One would have thought that Fermilab would rise above that. I wouldn't mind watching a rigorous 20-hour series of lectures on how they measure Yukawa coupling constants, for example. That they don't, and often quote articles behind paywalls, speaks volumes about their ethos.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@kabirmunjal9149 Thanks. I might do that. It was disproven by experiment, but hey, supersymmetry is almost disproven(and therefore superstrings) and that didn't stop me from learning about them. Grassmann numbers FTW.

More of this please. I can't get enough!

I’ve spent many hours watching Suskind and others relatively advanced lectures. Although I’m utterly lost by the associated math. I find it utterly fascinating to watch these great thinkers navigate. Truly remarkable!

@valtaojanesko5118

3 жыл бұрын

Suskind lectures are amazing, watch and learn really.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Susskind actually teaches physics. Fermilab, not so much.

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKf2NGCeN3agNo.html

Catching up on videos. Great job! Thank you for providing this lecture to the public for free.

Really good speaker who gave easy to understand answers; great questions also.

Right off the bat he answered questions I've been wondering about for decades. Thanx.

@quantumrobin4627

2 жыл бұрын

I just ordered his book, I’m so stoked!

@mountfairweather

2 жыл бұрын

You are welcome

I read the Vedas and I have to say, they are fundamental to understanding how our universe came to be. "Perhaps it formed itself, perhaps it did not. Only he who is its greatest overseer in the highest heavens knows, only he knows, or perhaps he does not know."

"The farther away a galaxy appeared the faster it seemed to be receding away from us" - The receding speed (rate) signature is as old as when the photons were emitted from their source.

@HebaruSan

3 жыл бұрын

Kind of. While the photons travel, the space they're travelling through is still expanding, so there is some additional redshift from that.

Amazing lecture, My experience is measuring, dimensioning of d/velocity= time. In a coordinates system to control what a mathematician, engineering id presenting.

2:38 Dan Hooper

Excellent job Dan.

I had to stop in the middle just to ponder and I felt like I should just go ahead and tell everybody it’s worth the time watch this

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

I learned nothing, all stuff I knew 10 years ago, and no math. Fermilab sucks. Susskind at Stanford is at least real physics.

yo tell this dude to put his podcast on youtube and freakin link that shit. this dude had me every word the whole 30~ minutes.

Wow... What a lecture! Especially the question at min 36. Baffled me. Thanks 😊

Excellent!!

My challenge in learning about all this is in attempting to try and grasp the magnitude of the sizes we’re dealing with. From understanding what infinity could mean versus how small the singularity is, I wonder if the human brain, and certainly at least mine, is even capable of grasping those concepts. But having said that I won’t give up trying :-).

Wonderful

These lectures absolutely rule! And Dan Hooper dropped an analogy using Metallica \m/

Great lecture, I really enjoyed it. I agree that it is possible that Universes could be "popping into existence" based on if energy cannot be created or destroyed but changes one form to the next. One can assume then that matter cannot be created or destroyed but changes from one form to the next. It is possible that particles that are observed to be destroyed could be just be reverting back to "dark matter" state. I would be curious to see if someone will come up with an equation to predict this. I know I can't lmao and Im not afraid to admit it :) I'm also curious to see if it is possible that the space in between each galaxy (that is accelerating away from each other) could be where new universes could come into existence if conditions are right. Very exciting for that possibility

I'm getting more and more confident that the theory of CCC is more likely than inflation.

@nihlify

3 жыл бұрын

It's much less studied than inflation, so I'd be careful about assigning a probability to it.

@azorthegreat2112

3 жыл бұрын

Just a thought. Would CCC look like a 4D fractal?

@nicholaspassmore927

3 жыл бұрын

As far as I know CCC theories predict certain shapes to appear on the microwave background that have not been spotted suggesting that at least in their current most popular forms are likely to not be correct, but it is not definitive yet so their is a little hope for CCC, but I think inflation is theoretically more likely to be true.

One of the best video. Thank you so much Fermilab.

The biggest thing that might lead to breakthroughs in cosmology I think could be recent measurements which have slowly been building challenging the assumption that the universe on the largest scales is isotropic. While this still seems to largely hold in the ancient universe surveys have been finding increasing evidence that this starts to break down below a few gigaparsecs which poses a complication towards the local distance ladder right around the time dark energy seems to come into play. Currently there isn't a significant enough amount of observations to make a verifiable claim either way but if whatever "dark energy" is appears to asymmetric (or even possibly an illusion due to anisotropy) it could lead to some interesting possibilities. One idea that has occurred to me after reading that there might be (weak evidence for) a preferential axis to the universe is the similarity that could have to the solution for a Kerr metric black hole as it collapses towards a singularity. After all we know GR breaks down at some scale so perhaps not unlike a collapsing star less than the neutron star limit rebounds after collapse releasing an enormous amount of energy at once with two solutions for space rapidly expanding outwards independently into different universes. If this seething transforming energy of unknown dimension is split like this could that offer a way to separate matter antimatter pairs with a slight imbalance of matter and antimatter in one "universe" or the other while also solving inflation? It is a stretch but it is an interesting hypothesis particularly in context with the holographic principal.

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

Universe basic state : IJSR vol.7, issue 3, Pages 273-275

@jamesstraus7767

2 жыл бұрын

Considering the common effects of the right hand rule having a force occur perpendicular to the plane of motion also leads me to think you might be right about a preferential axis. Also the holographic principal is becoming more and more accurate and proven to be true especially when looking at how a 4th dimensional (physical dimension) entity might be perceived in our 3D much less maybe do parts of ourselves and consciousness protrude into other dimensions we cannot fully perceive like a tesseract passing through a 3D reality.

Remarkable lecture ❤️

Nice

Enjoying the lecture - thanks so much!

Ooh, it's fermilab time

I have been a fan of this channel and PBS space time for a few years. I have a question for Dr. Lincoln. How is it in the theory of relative that a a person observing something knows that they are moving through space as well as the object they are observing?

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

Friend, not even a single particle can stand still. IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273-275

@jofmoomma1232

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnm.v709 thanks. So how do do I know if in moving or how something is moving in the direction or different speed than me. How is that quantified

Enjoyed the lecture. Very intriguing. However, I’m curious about how we can measure the age of universe by the number of times the earth revolves around the sun. It seems a bit specious to me. I find it difficult to form this question, but let me try. How do we know that time “behaved” the same way at the beginning of the universe as it does now? If we observed a hypothetical clock at the beginning of the universe, would a second take as long to pass as a second does today? How has time “changed” over the life of the universe? I hope you can decipher my question.

@jamescollier3

2 жыл бұрын

Right?! Or gravity or length or C? etc

@TheDavidlloydjones

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for asking. No: you would have been gasping for air and it would have seemed like a very long time. Next question, please.

This is what i want to watch at 12:00 AM

How can we tell the difference between “space is expanding” and “our rulers are shrinking”?

@KasiusKlej

3 жыл бұрын

The difference is that the space is expanding even within quarks, while our rulers a somewhat discrete, they are of different nature than the space is. Space is immaterial dimension, while our rulers are usually made of material.

@martinstent5339

3 жыл бұрын

@@KasiusKlej I didn’t mean physical rulers, although nowadays the meter is based on how far light travels in a defined fraction of a second, and a second is defined in terms of the wavelength of Caesium. And so, of course our meters or “rulers” will expand and contract with the curving of the space they are in. I just suddenly had this vision of the universe remaining the same and that the “granularity” of our space was decreasing, or to put it another way, our rulers shrinking. It seems to me that from inside the universe, we can’t differentiate between the 2 descriptions, expanding space and shrinking rulers.

@Dragrath1

3 жыл бұрын

@@KasiusKlej The added key point is that the forces of nature are still able to largely overcome this pull and keep stuff together. However at the supercluster scale structures are no longer truly bound. We can see that they were once close enough together for the subclusters attract each other so that suggests either space is getting larger or everything is shrinking forces included the latter of which is hard to match with observations. Now in the specific limit of a universe containing no massive particles, conformal cosmology suggests that without mass to slow things down information would travel at the same rate and the scale of space becomes irrelevant as the wavelength and the ruler so to speak match. I don't know if this is true but it is an interesting idea proposed which at least suggests we can't rule either possibility out entirely.

@KasiusKlej

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dragrath1 Supercluster scale? Quark scale? Planck's scale? Intergalactic scale? You have to consider looking at thing from both couples of sides of the perspectives. From point like scale perspective it is easy to imagine how expanding of space works. Point like structures, having zero size, remain intact by the expanding space around them. That is, the space expands around them, but the leg of this vector, a value of a field in certain point of space, which is just a number, stays intact. Now, it has been well observed on the intergalactic scale, that we can rule out the later reasoning, that the rulers are shrinking. Because it has been observed, that the distances between galaxies are getting larger compared to the ground we are standing on. Due to space expanding. The size of our room feel the same size day after day, so we can't really say, look, the galaxies are the same meters apart as yesterday, it is the meter value that has shrinks day after day. It doesn't work that way.

@Dragrath1

3 жыл бұрын

@@KasiusKlej Isn't that largely what I had said? I probably should have alluded more to the scale aspect but the reason I didn't rule out the other possibility is that it is possible that in a universe with only massless particles distance might lose all meaning and effectively reset (at least according to conformal cosmology)

We live in amazing times

Dr Hooper's accent reminds me of chael sonnen's

🎯Fermilab is Rock&Roll 📈 🤘😎 and trust me ,.. Every particles knows that !!

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

No math = not physics.

@marc-andrebrunet5386

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 music = mathematics

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKf2NGCeN3agNo.html

@marc-andrebrunet5386

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnm.v709 so cool !! Thank you 🤘👨‍🏫👍

Some people would suggest multiverse theories are unscientific because we could (most likely(I think)) create another theory that had the same predictions except for the multiverses and we should try and cut them out as according to occam's razor as we can never observe the multiverse itself, but only other parts of the same theory. However this is assuming that occam's razor is to do with the prediction, but if the formulation of the theory is also subject to occam's razor (I think it should do but I don't know if it does) then multiverse theories can be scientific as the theory with multiverses may require less unpredictable variables that must be measured therefore making it more useful as it would be more true in more situations suggesting it were more 'fundamental'. Furthermore if maths was discovered not invented surely occam's razor should apply all the maths not just the number of variables that must be measured. - This is all just my speculation from what I have heard about this.

When The Universe was fusion protons and neutrons together, the heat was very high for gravity to play a role and keep the fusion processes to higher heavy elements? If so why this doesn’t occur when a black hole is formed, temperature so high that would not allowed the black hole to Form... or the black hole is created in a very fast process that such repulsive energy temperature is never reached before the black hole event??

@Ken-no5ip

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe

Hey Fermilab, Q1: 14:00 - Maybe a stupid question but here goes...Light took 13-14 billion years to reach us from the edges of the universe but in the images generated by us does the image take in account the expansion of the universe, acceleration and the time that it took to reach us? ty

@jamescollier3

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Seen a lecture on that. There aren't even sure it's constant

No, 2020 was not another 1904 style paradigm shift, but I’m forever optimistic

I wonder whether Black Holes (including possible, invivisible primoridial ones) actually convert matter into dark energy, thus adding to the amount of dark matter in the universe and driving the expansion. Is there already a theory looking into that? Nice lecture.

@azorthegreat2112

3 жыл бұрын

Dark energy is not dark matter.

@jurgenblick5491

3 жыл бұрын

I am suspicious of Black Holes creating Universes

I love Dr. Hooper. Could the so called "islands of stability " elements have been formed in the BB? Perhaps these predicted elements are the dark matter.

1:10:00 I would add that because photons are red-shifted by the expanding universe, there is a limit on their age at detection. Once a photon's wavelength equals the diameter of the observable universe, it can no longer be detected by any conceivable experiment.

@TerryPullen

3 жыл бұрын

That makes a lot of sense.

@valtaojanesko5118

3 жыл бұрын

What happen photons energy in that case?

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

For basic state of universe IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273-275

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

@@TerryPullen Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKf2NGCeN3agNo.html

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

@@valtaojanesko5118 Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... kzread.info/dash/bejne/oKKf2NGCeN3agNo.html

At some points, he says so important things, that the simulation slows down a bit, while processing his statements. You get it... right?

A photon is it's OWN anti-particle?! Okay, three important differences: 1. Photons are bosons. Moreover they're electromagnetic wave packets and as such there's no such thing as an anti-electromagnetic wave... 2. They're massless and as such they move at the speed of light... 3. Dark matter particles on the other hand, have mass - presumably - since that's the whole point, and as such should have a corresponding anti-particle. If they don't they'd be the first massive particle that doesn't...!

@radishpineapple74

3 жыл бұрын

1. In quantum field theory, every "particle" is a wave packet, so it's no different there. 2. So? 3. Why does having mass mean that there must be an anti-particle? The Z boson has mass and is its own anti-particle, and so it is with the neutral pion, etc. Please see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truly_neutral_particle

@alansilverman8500

3 жыл бұрын

@@radishpineapple74 1. Not all QFT wave packets are electromagnetic. 2. Which means they're massless bosons and thus have no anti-particle. 3. Yes dark matter particles should have an anti-particle even it's itself so long as it has mass...

@radishpineapple74

3 жыл бұрын

@@alansilverman8500 Since when is there a requirement that, for a particle to have an antiparticle counterpart, it must have mass? Or vice-versa? Why can't a photon be its own antiparticle? Do you think that bosons cannot have antiparticles? Why?

@alansilverman8500

3 жыл бұрын

@@radishpineapple74 the Dirac equation

Is there a limit to size of universe when it started?

If all of space itself is expanding, do our rulers expand as well and thus measurements remain the same? Does the gravitational pull of the sun on planets, for example, decrease over time because of the expansion of the space between them? Similarly, will atoms eventually come apart because of the space in them expanding? Is the speed of light actually increasing over time in order for it to appear constant, to travel through expanding distances in the same amount of time?

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

For basic state of universe IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273-275

Can't predict weather for more than a week, but they will tell you everything about first seconds of the Universe!

Is it possible to tell by any measurements if we are closer to one edge of the universe?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

All points are, by definition, in the center of their light cone. Our particular past light cone is defined by the cosmic horizon, as are all other observers. That means an observer at, say, 14 billion light years to the galactic north is causally disconnected from an observer 14 billion light years to the galactic south of us. They can't see each other, but both can see us (as we were 14 billion years ago).

@mih1961

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 But if closer to one edge wouldn't there be a difference in expansion rates in opposite directions?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@mih1961 We are, by definition, at the center. Observation agrees with this. No matter which way we look, the speed at which things recede is proportional to their distance from us (at large scales.) All other observers would observe the same thing, no matter where they are. The "edge" we (or any other observer) see is a function of where we are, not a physical location in and of itself.

@mih1961

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 Everything has a physical location in time. You are referring to the observable universe. Even so, our observable universe should be affected by its position on the whole?

@mih1961

3 жыл бұрын

@@flatline8580 The universe does not resemble a balloon or a rising raisin loaf. Apparently, it is flattish. I am aware that "our" space is expanding.

When were the rules or constants of physics set into the material of our future universe?

Sounds like big bang describes a black hole that exploded and let out all the matter and energy it once had swallowed. Maybe it swallowed all there was and compressed it into the smallest possible space, then the force (heat, etc) overwhelmed it and burst it like a ballon with too much air in it?

One mystery was that initially for every particle created in the big bang, an antiparticle would also be created anihilating each other soon. This is ok if you are creating out of nothing as matter can't be created and then needs antiparrticles. But we do have energy with the big bang so dont understand why equal numbers of particles and antiparrticles need to be created

How can we know what the universe is like today, when everything we see is in the past?

@Zfast4y0u

3 жыл бұрын

fuck the universe and its creator who invented suffering.

Love a bass

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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. .

Just amazing. Always interesting content nice frequency 👍

Where is the location of the center of the Bug Bang? How far is it from earth? What direction should we look for? Or what directions that we do not look?

@paulchang3317

3 жыл бұрын

Big Bang, not Bug Bang. Sorry.

@danieljohnmorris

3 жыл бұрын

At least from our position, there is no centre. As far as the visible limit of the observable universe (the sphere around earth from where light has reached us), everything is equal. There is much universe outside of this sphere. If there is a centre at all, we cannot tell where. Depending on the universe geometry/shape, it may not have one, eg torus

@paulchang3317

3 жыл бұрын

Daniel Morris, Thanks for your help. May be you can help the other two questions on my mind. #1, Is there a sequence order of, or can put on a “time stamp” on, all points in the expanded space? #2, some people seems very serious about Iron nuclei formation in the Sun. Saying as soon as Fe show up, the whole Sun will collapse in few seconds. Is it true? Since Earth has a lot of Iron atom, would the Sun collapse if earth is swallowed by Sun, when Sun becomes a Red Giant? Or if a Sun orbiting satellite, containing Iron, falls into Sun at end of mission?

@danieljohnmorris

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulchang3317 Hi Paul. I didn't quite understand your first point, can you expand further? For the second question... - My understanding is there is about 1 billion years left in the Sun's lifespan before it starts to swell. When this happens, a) the habitable zone will shift further out into the solar system, so maybe another planet or moon will be more favourable for life. b) The sun will start to expand, and may well engulf Earth, or else Earth will be close to the surface and scorched. I'm unsure how long the process of expansion should take. - In regards to Iron, basically how nuclear fusion works is elements are turned into other elements. These new heavier elements then sink to the centre of the sun, and form a core / ring. In larger, it will end up with a series of rings of elements of different weights. With each new ring, a few things happens, including: the core gets hotter, and also the time to use up all the "fuel" of the ring is less time than the previous ring. - Iron cannot be used as fuel for fusion and therefore becomes an invert core in the centre of the star. Each new ring has a shorter lifespan to burn, and by the time Iron is produced, there is a very short lifespan left, which is why they say it can collapse in seconds. It's just the process that happens at the end of a large star's lifespan before it goes supernova, the rings before iron might be burned through in a day, a year etc - Our sun does have a small amount of iron in but is not hot enough to create iron. Our sun will also not supernova

@paulchang3317

3 жыл бұрын

Daniel, I think it is ok to say, something is created in this expansion process, and that thing has a some characteristic location (not identical as all other things), relative to some reference point, at some reference time. (The reference point, for example, can be where you stand today. ) I guess what I am trying to understand is, if it is not proper to ask where is the center of Big Bang, then, how about all other points’ birthdate? Can we thread a string through all points in today’s universe, according to the sequence of their birthday? So we will not just say loosely that the Universe is expanding, but have a more detailed description of the trajectories of all points. (May be except the center of Big Bang.) If some of these kind of threads can be established, then, could they be tangled up, forming a knot, during the might not that smooth expansion?

Space is expanding into time.

Do we know that free quarks can exist? I thought the idea of these quarks were that trying to separate them into individual particles just makes new quarks that are part of a larger hybrid particle?

Either an apochromatic refractor, or a very high end well corrected cassegrain telescope was used to image that image of messier 31, the adromeda galaxy and its satellites, based on the diffraction pattern of stars in the image. I love science and especially physics and cosmology, and the associated math. If fermilab needs more theorists or astronomers/cosmologists, let me know! I'll work for the betterment of all mankind.

How did the plasma form ?

It blows my mind that e=mc² means that energy equals mass that is moving.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Not so. That's E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. Another failure of Fermilab to actually teach physics instead of just toot their own horn.

@TerryPullen

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 The reason I posted is that I personally assumed the E=M relationship. I don't understand the formula you posted Wikipedia calls it the Energy-Momentum Relation, I've never heard of it. Can you explain it briefly or maybe point me in a good direction to do some reading? Thanks.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@TerryPullen E=mc^2 is true when things aren't moving. When things move, momentum comes into play. In that equation, momentum is p. Generally, p=mv, where v is velocity. In special relativity, mass changes dependent on velocity, so p approaches infinity as v approaches c for any object with mass. Massless photons have E=pc. That is the key difference between massive particles and massless ones: Massless particles with zero momentum have zero energy, ie they are not there. Particles with mass still have energy at zero momentum. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pqN7qpd7lMq4ipc.html

@TerryPullen

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 Thank you. Do you do this for a living? Because I suspect you've spent a few years prior coming up with that answer. That is the clearest most succinct answer I have ever gotten since my wife said... Stop That! I am thanking you now before I go off to let Profesor Susskind rummages around inside my skull again, he's been in there before and he always leaves it a mess. Again, heartfelt thanks.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@TerryPullen I have a BSc in physics, but I don't teach or work in the field. Most of what I now know comes from studying up on my own.

Conformal cyclic cosmology, people!!

Been thinking about what this really says for a while. It says that entangled pairs connect without limitations of time. The experiment needs an addition. A moved measure of the separated photon before, at and after the measure at the big screen. The answer i predict will be the same, wherever it is measured. because entangled pairs are connected without time. What change happens to one, happens instantly to the other, no matter the location in spacetime. howso? 1. all energy came here at the time before time of the big bang, and that moment is only expanding in spacetime and did not collapse that connection. That would mean all energy is connected from that event, regardless. 2. Time is an energy in space that makes the universe finite and make the past matter and the future potential. 3. The dimensions of something came from nothing and not nothing meeting in difference, so to refer to 1. and 2., the original event is still going on and will to the end of the universe, with reality popping in and out of existence in every possible direction all the time, and the connection to the original energy of the big bang singularity is always everywhere to a timeless place over the edge of spacetime.

So matter is not expanding with space? Not speed but fundamentally. Like the atoms are getting bigger?

Still got your band brother? ;)

is it just me or does Dan Hooper sound MUCH alike brian greene, including the content of his words?

@frogz

3 жыл бұрын

EINSTEIN'S UNFINISHED DREAM DR. DON LINCOLN, FERMILAB ZOOM WEBINAR - 9/11/20 Friday, September 11, 2020 show time: 7:30 PM Online Sale Number: ****** i cant wait! i dont even have a zoom account

Goes to show you physicists don't have to be geeky boring old dudes, Dan makes you feel at home

What no one talks about: What is uniformly creating more matter in space that expands our universe into the area beyond our ability to see? If space is expanding, what is space made from, and how is there more of it?

@mechanicaltimi123

3 жыл бұрын

Is the big bang just an observation that matter/energy is continually added? The question is "Where does all this matter/energy come from, how big is the storage tank?". In my humble opinion the dominant universe is taking from other possible universes and assuming the energy from other emerging universes that encompass the same position. That might be finite, however we will never know because of finite lifespans of apes. There is not accurate measurement unless one concludes that accurate exists in a fraction of time of the possible universal time. Big question "How big is the storage tank"? Space/Time is intimately connected to matter/energy. My second humble opinion, space/time is relative to the universal consumption of matter/energy. Which is something we apes haven't experienced because of short half lives.

So what is Pluto than.

Big brain food

So Light doesn’t ever die ? It keeps going .... If it’s been 13 billion years and you can see it now ,then it goes on forever ... right or wrong ?

Time; is just the human method of trying to measure 'the rate of change' taking place in your environment, and establish standards. But what you are experiencing, is just a 'Holographic Simulation', being played in "The Processing System of LIFE".

We should be investigating the .0000000% that gravity influences each atom. Quantum gravity….

Next video: Exploring the mysteries of our universe’s SECOND THIRDS

@JuiceBlack

3 жыл бұрын

Zatterin Fescontsanlix hahahaha i gotta admit, it took me a moment to get it, but then i was like 😂🤣👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

@purba2728

3 жыл бұрын

@@JuiceBlack i dont understand the joke

woohoo party time

@richardavery2894

3 жыл бұрын

Woot woot! Ppaaaarrrrttttyyyyyyyy!!!!!

I dont think mathematical estimates ever really touch each other. Even when what they are describing does interact with each other. I think thats why Dark Matter comes about.

Talk begins @ 3:00

You mean... There was a beginning?

@johnm.v709

3 жыл бұрын

Beginning - No IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273-275

Could dark mater be explained by star movement (maby a faster moving star warps space more creating a sort of domino effect)? Allso am I and everything around me expanding?

@terryboyer1342

3 жыл бұрын

azor The older I get my waist is definitely expanding.

Why didn't gravity cause all matter to collapse into a singularity at the beginning of the universe?

@rayzorrayzor9000

3 жыл бұрын

Seeing as it was sooo hot I suspect that the outwards pressure from this radiant heat negated the effects of gravity . Think of the sun and how gravity cannot collapse a star until it’s fuel runs out, as soon as there is no longer an outward pressure from heat/radiation then gravity will finally collapse that dying star, while the star does still have fuel then the outward pressure and inward pull of gravity balance each other out causing the star to be stable . Take Care . R .

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Because the value of the inflaton field was higher then. The universe expanded much more quickly, and the horizon was much closer.

Was the origins of the universe. big bag, solely consist of probility waves?

Time started with the big bang. Get over it.

which big bang are you talking about

from a measure of some scientists it apears that the univers is flat and at least 100 times bigger than the visible univers or even infinit. that means 43 billions light years of the visible universe multiple by 100 times. my qestion is how the universe get from one point (singularity) to at least 4.3 trillions light years or even infinit in only 13 billions years . how can you get infinity in a finite amount af time. another curiosity i have is about the futherest galaxy hubble could see. scientist calculeted that the light from that galaxy took 12 billion years to reach us. my queation is can someone calculate how close was that galaxy from us when the light left from that galaxy 12 billions years ago. can someone explain or answer with a link where it explains those two problems.

0 + 0 = planets, suns, zebra's and me!!!

Where is Don Lincoln??

@frankkubrick865

3 жыл бұрын

He was busy filming another classic episode of Subatomic Stories

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankkubrick865 Either that or deciding that Emmy Noether was a victim.

@rwood1995

3 жыл бұрын

September 11th I saw in description. I thought he was on this one too

Wife "Honey c'mon watch television with me" Me "Fermilabs is on KZread!!? I can't I have to watch Doctor Hooper talk" Wife "What's Fermilab?" Me "I want a divorce"

If all of space is expanding, then are my hands getting farther apart? That is to say, are we not expanding as well?

@nihlify

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. It's just so incredible small it's impossible to measure.

@joshuawilkerson3783

3 жыл бұрын

@@nihlify makes sense. Where I get confused is here: If we see it expanding outward in all directions, and that expansion magnifies in direct proportion to the distance from this point of observation, wouldn't it be possible to compare the rate of expansion in different directions with one another in order to find the center of the universe? That is to say, where are we now, in relation to the point in space where the big bang initially occurred?

@robglenn4844

3 жыл бұрын

No, he answered this in the Q&A portion. On scales as small as a galaxy, gravity and the other forces hold everything together with more strength than it's being pulled apart.

@joshuawilkerson3783

3 жыл бұрын

@@robglenn4844 yeah, I saw that after I asked this question. So now I'm back to wondering whether space itself is expanding, or rather the scattered clusters of material are merely moving farther apart at an accelerating rate. Sure wish they'd be clearer about this when talking about the expansion.

@KasiusKlej

3 жыл бұрын

If all of space is expanding, and taking that all means all, one would imagine that it expanding withing the quarks as well. So I would say yes, your hand are getting farther apart, but they also grow bigger. So there is no worry about hands flying off of the body. On scale as small as atoms, forces keep atoms being atoms, so there is no problem with hands falling off either.

Eternal inflation, multiverse, symmetry breaking, all are nice physic's myths..

... the universe is expanding. The universe is everything that exists. What it is expanding into won't exist until it... does. I am surely looking at it incorrectly, but my feeble brain can't grasp it. And reading these comments just proves i am way out of my depth.

There is a very basic system of motion that Physics and math have failed yet to find; much like position, acceleration, velocity and time are related, orientation, angular acceleration and angular velocity are also related. If a thing doesn't spin, doesn't mean no time elapses for it. Every Thing in the universe is subject to having its forward velocity vector rotated toward the sum of all the centers of gravity and relative magnitudes to find the actual target rotation, and then an axis of rotation perpendicular to that adjusts the forward velocity. If there is 0 velocity, additional velocity is added. None of this requires space to warp; and the correlation of Hubble varied redshift is not 'confirmation' of the Big Bang, but rather that photons, without interference/interacting with some other matter loses effective energy/frequency over time. Really have to go back to 'what are the photon detection systems reacting to' to really figure out the nature of the energy loss; it's not due to scattering, as every permutation of 'tired light' hypothesized, but definitely is a thing; unfortunately we can't keep a photon in a lab in such a state that it doesn't interact/interfere with anything for several thousand years to measure its Redshift. It's not doppler redshift, but redshift over time, and is purely a phenomenon of time and not a skew of time and space. We live in a universe which is much older than 14B years and much larger than 14B light years... in an infinite universe, we would be blinded by photons with an infinite lifespan (even given further sparsity of objects, we can already see that we don't get blinded by EVERY thing far away, but instead the energy we receive is at a lower frequency than we would expect it. There was this event that 'we found a lot of missing matter' by catching a bright flash from far away that some of the photons interacted with filaments between galaxies and had a new redshift timer so they were distinct from the original flash, being redshifted now by the distance of the galaxy instead of the light source. So any system that actually has a transmission medium I'd imagine cannot emulate redshift, because it appears the photons only lose energy when they do not interfere with anything. Perhaps the net effect of all gravitational sources causes a drag that eventually the photons diminish to the point they are indistinguishable from the background radiation - or just a hazy shape in the distant 'fog' (it's not fog, that would imply there was something interacting with the photons). Simulations of the universe don't actually start with a big bang, but just have a bunch of stuff in a box.... the simulations for instance that predicted the filaments between galaxies. You all should really spend some time considering alternative viewpoints such as the Electric Universe, which has a very simple explanation for so called 'dark matter' that keeps galaxies together, and even explains why fuzzy-spherical sort of galaxies don't have 'dark matter' (which is really, a coherent magnetic field, the shape of which can be observed in the Fermi Bubble of our own Galaxy.) Fusion is an endothermic process always. There is no experimental evidence of excess heat production from nuclear fusion; unless you count the H-Bomb which is probably more about proton annihilation than production of He3 and He4 ash. The fusion that happens on the sun is a way for the atmosphere to lose heat; which is constantly receiving heat from the fusion on/under the surface of the sun; Yes, it's not, but not because of fusion, but because there is no other place for hydrogen to lose its heat to the near vacuum of space surrounding the sun; and the sun had enough gravitational pull that it's hard for hydrogen to just fly away... I've heard this tale repeatedly, and recent evidence of additive rotations github.com/d3x0r/stfrphysics in this project I started, I'm certain 3d solutions (not 1D) for turbulence can be created; and I wish I had the time and depth of knowledge to do it for you... but math has overlooked a very simple thing; and in having things that 'spin' there are thing that spin excessively, to the point that they are unable to move linearly; If photons are a thing with 0 spin and greatest linear speed, then at the other end are black holes that have greatest spin and 0 linear speed... I've heard, and with this system, I'd expect that black holes near each other don't actually attract each other as much as they should; but that's because they act more like anchors than suns; suns like most 'things' are in a state of matter somewhere between having internal spins at maximum, but the composite turbulence doesn't prohibit moving. However; it appears that as things go faster, they are unable to spin as fast (clocks move slower)... it appears deeper in the velocity acceleration of gravity, things are not able to spin as fast (clocks move slower). 1) matter-anti-matter; None of this really addresses why we are matter... (maybe we are only anti-matter and not matter; but regardless) 2) dark matter is just magnetic fields. kzread.info/dash/bejne/a3mEztuih5Ded6w.html If you have a homogeneous magnetic field over paramagnetic bodies a common field is induced in them all which have north poles aligned with north poles, so the ball bearings do not want to flip themselves ... and they actually repel each other, while at the same time being attracted to the center of the field. Galaxies (as previously mentioned) have huge magnetic fields. Suns, planets, etc all have a lot of iron... Some galaxies (recently mentioned as an explanation, that maybe a 'lack of dark matter' tell us... well those galaxies are spherical and not in a flat disk.) there is no 'invisible matter'. 3) the universe isn't expanding, space doesn't curve, things do... although we do live in a perpetual motion device, where things aggregate and coalesce, until under their own force they ignite and being fissile, sending energy(and matter) back out into the universe; black holes gather photons, heat, matter, gather it, and re-emit particles out of its poles where the linear motion is least, and only the spin component exists, allowing condensation of matter in the poles; until there's such a mass that it has enough substance to force emissions out the poles of the black hole - the high energy x-ray emissions from the poles of black holes are not from an interaction of the particles in the 'atmosphere' or corona/accretion disk. You know, from very far away, the milky way looks like a black hole, with an accretion disk (Maybe our massive black hole isn't as massive as some that we see in the distance... still I did see an interesting analysis of the emissions of the black hole reflecting off its own Fermi Bubble and bouncing back off of all the suns in the system (looking like a lot of iron, since mostly there's a layer of iron at the surface of suns) 4)(maybe I missed a separate point) 1) measuring the speed of light 'always the same' as in the wavelength is always the same - that much is true, because the wavelength is contained just in the photon instance; a stream of photons in beam of light looks more like a wave; but the thing itself does have wave character because it has a spin. So when it interacts with a thing, it imparts a certain amount of spin to the target; translating its linear velocity, and its effective 'wavelength' into a certain angular momentum which measures as 'frequency' of light. ... I have to go for now; posting here before I lose it all. I can ellaborate; just tried to give a real brief response. (Too bad this won't actually get to the guy that's talking :) )

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

An electric universe flat earther. Both are the same.

@3zdayz

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 Big Bang Theorist is on that list also then... basically anyone with any sort of belief system whatsoever; only most don't deny evidence they can't themselves witness.

@3zdayz

2 жыл бұрын

@Edward Armstrong then I'm afraid the fault is on your failure to interpret such simple concepts rather than a failure to convey them accurately and with their proper meanings. Otherwise please do offer elucidation on what you have misunderstood or perhaps I have poorly phrased. The math and observations make for fact not belief.

great video! we should make a magentic antimatter cannon on the moon to take out incoming asteroids

Softballs thrown, softballs returned. No mention of MOND (or a non-BM solution) vs black mater, BM is a theory only which needs to be stated firmly. Inflation also can only be homogeneous IF the 13.5 by is the local universe vs the extended universe who's diameter must be orders of magnitude larger, otherwise there would be difference in expansion overall. This is a fact based on geometry of the local universe (what we see) and its age.

8:40 you can have expanding space without a big bang if matter is created in space as space expands. Every cubic centimeter will eventually become a universe

@freetrailer4poor

3 жыл бұрын

To go further. As the universe expands, it creates a primitive form of matter dark matter. Ordinary matter is created in the galaxy from dark matter. The same way a hurricane creates clouds and wind from a hot ocean. A galaxy creates rotation and matter from dark matter that was created in empty space. When you look in a telescope, deep field, you are look at space all created at about the same time. Thus when you go back 14 billion years you are seeing space with no galaxies. However, thee is no boundary. Beyond that are other universes.

Speaking of revolutionary ideas, perhaps it's time we stop scrambling to "tie up the loose ends" of capitalism with reform after reform and try a new paradigm.

👍👍👍👍👍👌👌👌👌👌👋👋👋👋👋

I don’t have time for all this

@whirledpeas3477

2 жыл бұрын

Late for your night shift at McDonald's?

I'm suspicious of all theories based on the OBSERVABLE, ball-like universe clicking away at our stopwatches steady flow of seconds of time.

@seamus9305

2 жыл бұрын

@Edward Armstrong Because of the assumption that time in the early universe clicks away in the same uniform rate as we experience it now. We don't understand time inside a black hole, never mind a condensed universe.

@seamus9305

2 жыл бұрын

@Edward Armstrong Because time is relative. Who's clock are you going by when the universe is the size of a basketball.

@seamus9305

2 жыл бұрын

@Edward Armstrong The claim that we understand the early universe down to a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. See earlier comment.

I find it so strange to think where is space and how it doesn't have an answer or it just is. Talk about being lost xD