Have astronomers disproved the Big Bang? 

"have you tried turning dark energy off and on again?"

As soon as I saw the thumbnail I could hear Issac in my head saying "Every headline which ends in a question mark, poses a question for which the answer is no.".

The universe was installing updates and needed to reboot.

Hello Dr. Don Lincoln, Could you do a video about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

One thing I'd really enjoy you discuss is how relativity (time dilation) plays in the early universe due to so much mass in close proximity and its velocity.

I'd help you guys out, but the number 9 hasn't worked on my calculator since high school.

Dr. Lincoln,, Greetings from northen Sweden and a new subriber, even though I have been watching the channel for a long time. I don't know how or what I have done but my kids, 11 and 14 years old are watching the channel among others. I do like the way you manage to get some humor in to the videos as well. Science rules.. Always.

science: we dont have answers mystic: we dont have questions, only answers

In science, errors aren't a problem: they are where to look for new understanding.

10:32 THANK YOU Dr. Lincoln for being Physicist, and not an English major!

Does the image of the CMB wrap around to/on itself? I.e. is it an image of the 4 pi solid angle, laid flat like a Mercator projection? When you drive off one edge do you drive onto the opposite edge?

In a world where too many are too cocksure of their answers, a bit of honest humility of "We don't know" is very refreshing. Uncertainty in the frontier of science is natural. Thanks to Fermilab!

Just been scrolling through the comments, yikes! Something about physics seems to act as a magnet to the crazies.

It's not clickbait if you were going to watch the video anyway.

Galaxies moving away from Earth? I bet they do. Other worlds know what we are and try to stay away.

Could the difference between the two measurement be something to do with measuring around a curve vs. a 'straight' line?

Well appreciated channel, thank you. In this vid, I notice how when talking about e.g. 'the universe is expanding' scientists really mean the Observable universe. Don mentions the O word in the beginning but more often than not it gets glossed over. We could be in an expanding bubble, surrounded by shrinking universe :)

I love how in the first 45 seconds of the video you're just like "No. They haven't." Thanks for not having 8 minutes of BS until you actually answer the question in the title. Still gonna watch the rest though of course!

What if the Hubble constant isn't a constant?

I love the coy sense of humour with that serious note of getting the message across very clearly. Good stuff. I’m looking forward hearing more on particle physics.

You are the best physics lecturer I have ever heard in life and on youtube. You are awesome! Along with Agadmator (Chess)

So, Dark Energy switched off, then switched back on again. Sounds legit.

How do you measure this very low 2.7kelvin temps and remove other sources of the same frequency?

Dear Dr. Lincoln. Thank you for very inspiring teachings! - you inspire your students to think and ask questions by presenting both the known and unknowns with a teaser that even some of the known concepts may need review. This video has prompted me to ask: What if there was no dark energy or gravity prior to the thing going bang? What if the repulsion gravity in dark energy is also just gravity, or at least the same mechanism? Perhaps, in the initial expansion, DE and G would be indistinguishable. Matter would tend to coalesce, ie. pushed into larger objects under the repulsion-based gravity, while still expanding outward. What if the underlying repulsion-based mechanism is simply electrons - many, many electrons that would occupy the vacuum space within the newly formed atoms (above and beyond the required number of bound electrons) and within the boundaries of the newly formed and expanding universe? Beyond the boundaries being true nothingness.. As you pointed out in the video, this initial expansion rate would, in time, fizzle out. What if the second (and current) expansion phase is due to electrons being ejected from the stars (follow the energy - Occam's razor) as they started to come on line? Does this fit into the expansion timeline? Wouldn't this star-formed DE explain the continued acceleration expansion of the universe, the bulging central star clusters in galaxies, and to bring it all closer to home, the increase in the astronomical unit? 'Electrons everywhere' may sound absurd - and, of course, easy to detect. Right? What if we are only able to detect electrons that are forced out of a homogeneous balance within the vacuum space? An electron beam formed, accelerated, and detected only when the local concentration is changed.. What if detection evidence exists all around us and is taken for granted? The formation of static electricity (referring to Ben Franklin's single electric fluid model and not the current electron-proton model), piezo electric accelerometers that respond to inertial forces by directly producing electrons (charge), and of course, the double slit experiment as viewed from Dr. Bohm's deterministic perspective. Even though the electrons occupy all the vacuum space homogeneously, the interaction details with matter would have to be totally a quantum interaction. The exclusion zone (in the vacuum space within matter, as well as the electrons that may occupy that vacuum) is the nucleons. The number of nucleons in a hunk of matter holds the 'information' for the mass of that object, and any resulting gravitational or inertial forces. What if constant velocity interactions with matter cause electrons to 'pop out of existence' on the leading face of the object, and 're-appear' in the wake of the object. Could quantum superposition such as this explain the reason such interactions are not ordinarily detectable? Would just such an interaction explain all the fun stuff special relativity expresses? When the rate of change of velocity is altered, would it be reasonable to say that some electrons are then forced to pass through the object? This interaction thus producing a 'drag' force that we call an inertial force? (and also why the piezo accel works) And you also mentioned the failure of what works on the universe scale tends to fail on the atomic scale. What if the nuclear forces are also not forces from within, but the same repulsion-based-push as gravity? I hope that I have not exceeded my limit on how much can be posted here - certainly, I have presented too many questions..

You forgot the last and the most important fact: Betty White was the Original Singularity, the Primordial Cause, and the ‘Branes’ behind The Big Bang.

Isn't there a flaw in calculating the Hubble Constant using the distance between two points of matching temperatures by assuming that the temperatures observed are all results of identical circumstances? (Compared to using the current distance and velocity of individual points)

Could you make a video on what the second quantization is?

thanks for the Betty White joke, young man.

Why assume dark energy was the force that changed? What if it was gravity? If one force can fluctuate, why not some others, or all of them.

"...a Megaparsec is just 3.3........million light years." Fantastic delivery, sir.

I really enjoyed this video, it was a revelation to hear that the dark energy concept appears to have happened I two stages. I have heard some in the scientific community talk of a big rip as an end point to the universe, I assume this because they don't foresee a stage three to dark energy perhaps changing it's characteristics as it has shown with stages 1 and 2. I wonder if there is a stage 3 that may have the dark energy contract and the cyclic cosmos theory would be a credible theory for the evolution of the universe. Great video Fermi Lab, and I love Don's t-shirts and dry humour, I am awful with understanding jokes but I get his humour thankfully.

Excellent easy to follow and understand video. Thank you. Subscribed.

Car guy 1: I think the car is Cherry Red. Car guy 2: I’m pretty sure it’s Atomic Red - they didn’t make these cars in Cherry Red the year it came out. Newspaper Headline: Car guys disprove car exists!

the Clickbait title is strong with this one

overall expansion density causing differing local time dilation?; changing constants over time but we see it as set in stone or haven't the testing yet? I'd love to read a recommended set of studies and papers about this.

You need a quantum theory , they always come in handy when you don’t know something in physics

Give it up for Dr. Don 'The Shirt' Lincoln!

How does the accelerating expansion not explain this?

Could you do a video on how electricity moves through a circuit at the quantum level? I've heard the energy in a circuit comes from the surrounding quantum field and the battery or generator replaces that energy rather than provides it. If true, that's mind-blowing.

Awesome explanation and wonderful videos- I watch them all. A year ago, I read this article about possible attractive forces beyond our current known spatial dimension and we are, for lack of a better term, “surfing” on these forces. Perhaps that is the missing component for determining a more accurate and agreeable expansion rate. Also, if the forces are not homogeneous, that would also explain discrepancies. I believe this may be the journal I was referring to: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301 I find these topics fascinating- and the animation you used to show the galaxies drifting away or perhaps towards something really suggests there is so much more than we have been able to observe.

Man.... Amazing💕😍 never thought about this...

What I learned here is that we don’t KNOW a damn thing for sure.

This is a great video in explaining expansion after the Bang, but was the sideways TARDIS intentional at 9:00 minutes? :) Thank you for addressing BBT and its validity!

Betty White's first appearance on Television was 3 months after Graduation in 1939 where she and her classmates sang songs from The Merry Widow on an Experimental Los Angeles Channel. She was also on a documentary which took 10 years to complete which aired August 18, 2018 called Betty White First Lady of Television.

Beautiful episode. It went by fast.

If the world had teachers like this man at junior and senior schools we could have had scientists who could have unlocked the secrets of the universe by now. He explains things so clearly and leaves you wanting to learn more. Keep up the good work and be blessed !

What about adding a measurement from slightly later than 4000ABB (After Big Bang) to see if it agrees with the measurement from 4000ABB or perhaps the rate of the expansion does not only depends on distance but also on time? I.e. the acceleration is not constant as a function of time, thus the two current measurements , although different, are correct. Another solution might be that the acceleration function is not the same in each direction due to e.g. varying dark energy clusters. Although it might oppose to the uniformity of space.

what is the constant's value when calculated for the most distant objects we can see? is it the same as the hubble one, or somewhere in between the 2? could it be it is not a constant, but a very flat curve of some sort? surely sounds easier than turning dark matter/energy on and off...

I thought Dr. Lincoln gonna say that the discrepancy is due to some event, the scientists named "The Dark Event". We know nothing about it, but we are sure it happened!

Love this one just like all the others! I'm a classical musician, but really get a big charge out of relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. I'm really enjoying your videos.

Could there be variations caused by the constantly shifting points of observations for the recovery of data .

Would an observer , just on the other side of the horizon of our observable universe , see our furthest observable galaxies accelerating towards them ? Or would they be accelerating (expanding) away from said galaxies , at what from our point of view is an exponential rate ?

Well, I'm not an expert in the field and I'm just asking a simple question to be clear. But the first thing that came through my mind was Gravity. In the early universe all matter of the universe was so close and dense which meant thr gravity force was enormously high. Would the gravitational force be able to decelerate the expansion rate back then?

I find it rather interesting that assuming The Big Bang actually happened, that would also mean that it was so incredibly dense at one point that the gravity it had would have been too strong for it to have flown apart.

please...what determines the speed of light...the particular speed we observe?

Fermilab is an awesome place to visit, they have tours plus they do a some lectures.

How can you disprove something that hasnt been proven. Unless a theory is a proven fact.

I disagree. The big bang theory aired its last episode months ago. Officially dead.

I love this channel and Dr. Lincoln's down-to-earth delivery of physics information! That said, with the discrepancy between the methods/results of measuring the Hubble Constant, the incompatibility of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, or our understanding of gravity, you wonder how much humans really understand about the physics of the Universe? Clearly we are just taking our first baby steps with the weight of knowledge yet to be discovered far out-weighing what we think we know presently.

Very good. You make phisycs more understandable. Congratulations.👏👍

6:56 the data they are checking 👌 so thorough! 🤣

Fermilab and David Butler have done more to increase my 'limited' knowledge of science than most others.Great teachers.

Does the Planck length change with the expanding universe?

In the leptogenesis tape, does the transition between the water and steam world occur at the same energy level as grand unification? ie 10 e 16 eV

I love you guys!!!! Can I come live at Fermilab? I'll pay rent and clean!

Fermilab's english major to physicist ratio may fall a few percentage points shy of being absolutely spectacular (a good thing for a physics lab) - but you creatively cream captivating cosmic click-bait captions!

These Fermilab videos are great, but there's little or no info on the actual tools / gear and specifically apps used to get / generate the presented results.

Hi, Would the discrepancy Hubble constant be explained by interaction between the big bang and a subsiquent second bang preceding the period when the cosmic microwave background was emitted? Interaction between big bang one (rapid inflation) and big bang two would go some way to explain the variation within the cosmic microwave background and might be a more simple assumption to make. That is to say: the two periods of rapid inflation were both in our universe, not one in our universe and one in a parallel universe (as some current thinking)? I think that we are misguided when we create models including dark energy and dark matter, here is my logic:- Newtonian gravity was and is able to accurately predict motion at worldly distances while breaking down at solar distances, the orbit of Mercury for example. Einstein formulated a more complete explanation of gravity while breaking down at mid galactic distances, for example the outer rotation of galaxies need dark matter to explain the velocity, while the accelerating cosmic expansion needs dark energy. I concluded that the Einstein model incorrectly presents a kind of over-damped distortion to space-time, when reality is probably more akin to an underdamped distortion in space-time. Resulting in a zone of repulsive gravity stretching beyond the visible universe, before finally decaying to zero. I bet this would be a very easy tweak to the math, just like the MOND dynamic modification. Einstein, like us all, was a child of his own time and now we look back at his work with rose coloured spectacles, ignoring the 'dumb' spooky papers, and perhaps ignoring the limits of his other brilliant work. And finally, I think that these two groups the Plank and Hubble teams are both correct, and we need to explain this descrepency. Thank you and best regards, Graeme Yorwarth PS I really like this channel, thank you and keep up the good work!!

Perhaps our instruments aren't as precise as we think they are.

@7:00 They don't look like they're doing much work.

The Betty White joke was the most fascinating part by far

Could be just measurement error, just like how over time the Earth to M31 distance has been revised.

I don't know enough about the sciences to really chime in, but many have claimed they can debunk the big bang, often with seemingly good explanations, I think it goes without saying, we would love to see someone such as yourself examine and address these claims. Acadamia after all, tends to be reluctant to address anything that doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative.

it seems like the 'projection' team didnt project far enough into the future. Perhaps instead of getting the expansion rate wrong, they got the age of the universe wrong. Perhaps its actually much older than we currently believe.

I really appreciate Don's honest, knowledgeable, and personable presentation here.

Many thanks for this insightful video.

Don, 100% good video. Well done.

Can you make a video about why scientists think dark matter and dark energy actually exist instead of thinking about a new theory of gravity? It would be super interesting! And keep up the great work!

Of course there is always the possibility that the two different measurements of the expansion rate made by the two methods may be in error due to errors in the assumptions or fundamental errors made in the methods on which the distance values are made. For example, Cephied variable stars have been use as “standard candles” to determine middle distances beyond the Milky Way, using the difference in their intrinsic luminosity compared to their apparent luminosity, and applying the inverse square law. The measurements may in fact have some errors due to such factors a galactic dust affecting the apparent luminosity. Interestingly enough, a newer third method of measuring the expansion based on type 1a supernova brightness at the peak of their brightness and using a statistical model results in a value for the expansion that falls between the CMB (Planck) result and the Hubble result, but closer to the CMB within reasonable error statistics. I think more refinement of all methods are necessary. Perhaps the JWST will produce more data that will allow for better measurements

what is the name of the intro song ?

Well played, Dr Lincoln. I read the title and was like "WHAAAHHH???"

"400000 years old sounds pretty old" the universe: nah, that's tiny. i'm 13.7 billion now and my lifespan is over 10^94 years the immortal queen of england: not bad, kid. but i can live for an eternity superspruce with septillions of eternities: _pathetic_

These certainly are interesting phenomenon and data really needs to be continuously collected and for use in later models, whether derived by AI or good old-fashioned thought experiment. Could some of these mysteries explain of the early divergence of matter and anti-matter. What if space itself and dark energy were an emergent property of some kind of anti-matter transition? Even empty space is bubbling with possibilities, so could this potential account for the "missing" anti-matter as it is somehow subsumed into the geometry of space? I'd hate to try and solve that integral! The story of everything is, indeed, truly spectacular.

Dark energy should be renamed as "the force"

Hello, I am a Russian college student who is crazy about science. Your RU-vid channel delighted me and awakened even more traction. I like the way you decided to popularize science, but one thing haunts me: I have not found on the Internet a single translation of your videos in other languages. (in my case, in Russian) I know English very well, but many Russians do not but this does not mean that they do not like physics. it’s unfortunate that they cannot see your videos because of the language barrier. I offer my helping hand. I'm going to translate videos like yours by voicing them in Russian. From you, I only need copyright permission to use your content. I have not started anything yet. But I’m going to start soon, hoping for your approval. I mean I will start my own YTchanel with translations.

In for commentary about Penrose’s CCC and the experimental findings supporting it

16 Aug 2019 Keith Stevenson being an novice, armchair cosmologist, most encouraging. thanks .

I did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

astronomers never proved the big bang

I find it interesting that depending on what science show you watch that talks about the "cosmology crisis" have different interpretation of it. He says big Bang hasn't been disproven while others say the age of the universe may indeed be older then we think.

Points of information -The 'Hubble constant' was first derived by Georges Lemaître before Hubble! Astronomers didn't set out to measure the 'cosmic microwave background' as stated. It was an accidental discovery.

Well, I think that instead of finding answers, we are creating our own. We need to think if we can have a simpler explanation, from within our understanding. What if we are just imagining things? What if universe works on much simpler bases than we think?

Dark Matter, and Dark Energy especially are misnamed. They should use a much older name for them: Magic. They exist only to save the theory. If the history of science shows anything, it is much more likely that the theory is fundamentally wrong rather than there are mysterious forces out there that have no effect other than to make the equations come out right. This is very similar to the epicycles that they introduced to save the earth-centered universe theory when observations didn't match the theory.

Thank you Dr Lincoln.....this is good education

Some thoughts that come to mind, What is CMB reflecting off of? If I shined a flashlight into outerspace, I would never see it again unless it reflected off of something. Also isn't it odd that inflation occurs faster than the speed of light? I could have swore some smart guy said that's impossible. And the whole rewinding the universe where all the matter meets at one point (which we conveniently have no idea where that is) isn't that like taking a snapshot of the tide going out and saying the ocean was empty and all of the water came from LA?

5:49- "Nobody seriously questions that the universe began fourteen billion years ago..." Except Ken Ham.

Wow,for a moment I thought we all never happened...pfff.

So what was the potential energy at the beginning to create the big bang? And if the crunch scenario is thrown at me then the universe is older and then what was the potential energy at the beginning before the first bang that crunched and banged perhaps an infinite amount of time ago?

How do we know the Hubble Constant is invariant with time?

love his sometimes kinda awkward presenting / jokes. Proves that he's a really smart guy :p