As an experienced civil engineer, we should take the average and round it to the nearest integer and then call it a day. Any difference would be not constructible any way.
"It's important for a scientist talking about speculative ideas to remember to not believe what they think" is something that should be taught in high school. Bless you for saying this!
I used to work on fire alarms. One time we had a problem where the alarm wasn't being heard in one room of a factory. Everything was installed correctly, the volume output of the device was where it should have been, there was nothing we could find that would explain why it wasn't working. Then they turned on the machinery. It turns out the frequency of the sound of the machine was canceling out the frequency of the notification device.
I designed over 9000 sounds (over the course of about one decade). I can confirm that resonance is indeed a tricky thing, and unexpected cancellations can occur in both the most bizarre ways, but sometimes also the "obvious yet not so obvious" manners as well. 😁 There was one particular sound I generated (of those 9000+) which essentially resonated at the exact frequency of the speaker tubes it was going to be played within. ANY other speaker system was fine... but not the typical place where the sound was going to end up being played. Lemme tell ya... THAT... was a *disaster*. 😂 I chased that issue around until I realized everyone was usin' tinier speakers (28mm?), but my test projects had 36mm and 40mm ones. 🙄 Yeesh. *ONE* sound out of 9000. Drove me nutttzzz.
Even though I wasn't much interested at first, I enjoyed this. Nice, clear and concise, exactly what physics *should* be. I'm a fan of elegant simplicity.
Awesome video as always! Another detail about where disagreement lurks between general relativity and quantum theory. Thank you for the information, Dr. Don
That is not the question. Earth prevented from computing the true question due to interference from the Golgafrinchans. Furthermore, even without said interference, Earth was destroyed minutes before the question was scheduled to be complete. Also, it is suggested that it is impossible for the question and the answer to be simultaneously known in any given universe.
Adding up all wavelengths sounds like when I ordered EVERY toppings on my pizza (I could choose any with no additional charge). I thought I was smart, until I received the pizza, and realized that the total amount of toppings is always the same, and it is shared amongst my choices. So I got a little of everyhting.
When wavelengths are mentioned I think about electromagnetic radiation, which has frequency and amplitude. Would the amplitude of the "hum" decrease as the frequency increased, with the amplitude approaching zero as the frequency approaches infinity? I've been a radio comms engineer for half a century, and the two waveforms are probably different things, and I'm talking garbage. But if you don't ask, you don't get.
With this one, I think it's best to keep in mind a fundamental verification problem of theories of empty space. How would one verify a theory of empty space, if empty space can't be measured directly? The General Relativity approach appears to be subtractive - to take out all the "stuff". The Quantum Mechanical approach also appears to be subtractive - to cancel out all the wavelengths. I wonder if these two approaches don't produce different empty spaces? In theory, it appears that they do. General Relativistic empty space seems to be some volume, but the quantum mechanical solution makes it difficult to even verify that much!
When physicists talk about the Higgs Boson giving mass to other particles, they're actually talking about the zero-particle state (vacuum state) of the Higgs Field. If there were no residual fluctuations in fields in their vacuum state, this wouldn't work, and electrons would be massless (most of the everyday stuff around us would still have mass because most of the mass of protons and neutrons isn't from the Higgs).
'SPACE': Consider the following: a. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them. b. Light, 'electromagnetism', in the visual light portion of the spectrum fills outer space as well here on this Earth. That is why we can see things here on this Earth as well as far away stars, galaxies, etc. c. 'Electromagnetism' ('em') also comes in other energy frequencies besides visual light: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared waves, Visual light waves, Ultraviolet waves, x-rays, and gamma waves. (Also in outer space and here upon this Earth at various locations). d. Modern science claims that 'em' can interact with matter. QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms. e. 'Gravity' also appears to actually exist, with at least varying densities if not even varying frequencies. So, 'space' is energy itself, primarily energy fields with the primary modalities of gravity, electrical and magnetic. 'Time' most probably is the 'flow of energy', 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. And the current analysis indicates that both space and time always existed and never had a beginning (also as modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed). * The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons.
What if such a thing as "empty space" or what we imagine as zero of anything doesn't exist , or doesn't exist in in our dimension. There is always us moving through something. Same with the concept of zero. I see how we use zero for counting but it might not really be just a value of opposing forces which also is never absolute zero but just zero average of those opposing forces... (different mathematics). I don't know...
I was thinking it seem analogous. It seems those low frequency stacking is a problem and other physics stops it. This is lay person conjecture, but it also seems similar to the mystery of matter or how matter and anti-matter canceled except a small percentage did not.
LINCOLN!!!! I've been watching you for years now. Questions on Lincoln Logs of years ago aside, you do good work, and are probably underrated as a science communicator. Maybe that's because you concentrate on work as well as communication! Keep up the learnin' brother. #ENLEARNIFICATE!
@patricklincoln5942 he's obviously talking about the man in this video. His name is Don Lincoln, but even if I didn't know that, it would be easy to infer from the comment that the man in the video is named Lincoln.
There is only one thing on this topic that we can be fairly confident of, and that it we're missing some part of the answer. What that part is.... could be quantized spacetime, could be extra dimensions, could be a bug in the simulation code, could be a non-integer number of angels dancing on the head of each pin......
I feel that absolute "nothing" or zero doesn't actually exist. To define nothing you need something and therefore we are. Nothing of what? Nothing of something. Just the thought of nothing creates on a quantum level a change (something). Nothing doesn't exist. It's always negative and positive opposites of something.
@@Aracuss Interesting philosophically, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can take the limit where less and less exists in a space. And even if not, the quantum vacuum energy actually also exists when we don't assume a vacuum, on top of the other stuff, and is still incompatible with GR.
8:20 If the big bang was supposed to have created equal quantities of matter and anti-matter, but there was a small inequity that caused more matter than anti-matter. Could a similar inequity be responsible for an imbalance types of dark energy. And could there be a relationship between the two phenomena?
Again, thank you, the public needs to hear your voice and others like you. We need scientists to be honest like this too, and humble before the great mysteries of the cosmos. Always let's keep the basic questions alive
After some thought agree with the two field approach ... The worst prediction in physics is often attributed to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant itself is a purely derived constant and not a fundamental one. So, which fundamental constant should we consider when addressing this problem? Another constant used in general relativity is referred to as Einstein’s constant kappa, which Einstein merely considered as a constant connected to Newton’s gravitational constant. From a quantum perspective, the energy density of empty space is equal to or proportional to Planck’s energy density. Restating Einstein’s constant in terms of energy density, it becomes the Planck frequency squared divided by the Planck energy density. If we express the cosmological constant in terms of frequency squared, we can determine the energy density of the universe. After rearranging some terms, the energy density of the universe becomes the Planck energy density multiplied by the ratio of the cosmological constant’s frequency squared to the Planck frequency squared. This frequency squared ratio is crucial for understanding the cosmological constant problem. In mechanical vibration, the frequency squared ratio often serves as an amplification/damping ratio or coupling constant. Therefore, we can assume that the cosmological constant’s energy density is coupled to the Planck energy density, accounting for the 120 orders of magnitude difference.
(from Henry V, spoken by King Henry) Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect; Let pry through the portage of the head Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble lustre in your eyes. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
@@GradyPhilpotton and on and on and on, I think the phrase originated prior from the infamous dispute between Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey, where Harvey writes: "The eagle does not catch flies"
Most people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "The game's afoot", including script writers for modern adaptations. "Game" here isn't in the sense of "play" or "sport". It means an animal that is being hunted. Hunted animals will often seek a hiding place and remain there, so hunters would use dogs, other people, or whatever to scare the game out of its hiding place. The game would then be in the open, running away, and it was time for the hunters to start chasing it. Hence the cry "The game's afoot!", which grew into the wider sense of "After waiting, it's time to act".
4:02 does he mean permanent particles are created from empty space? Are these particles included in his calculation of total energy density? Or only the virtual particles are included?
Seems like the curvature of space-time would diminish as the distance between objects increased. This might create the illusion of acceleration as objects reached areas of less curvature, like traveling at a constant speed on a winding road generally heading east versus a straight highway going due east.
Imagine showing your Physics professor maths in 1996 that suggested the "universal expansion" is accelerating only to have the discussion shutdown because, at that time, the "cosmological constant" was "known to be zero"... then, two years later... Lol
@@Vatsek Which fits my prediction perfectly as to varying rates of the passage of time as one make observations further and further back in time - consistent with the two observations of gravitational waves traveling faster than light, the further the greater the difference in arrival time. BTW - gravitational waves are not demonstrating any "redshift" - let THAT sink in 🙂
Maybe a stupid question but as a former radio repairman turn audio installer I can't help but wonder... When calculating the energy within under the Standard model, measuring every possible wave within (excluding based on Plank or not) are you, can you, calculate for Frequency Cancelation? E.g. the ever existing example of water ripples on a pond or the more current version comparison of noise cancellation. If any two waves are applied to each other what is the outcome? Complicated by calculating that interaction across all the waves used to calculate the energy in the Standard Model of course... Is it possible the Frequency Calculation so drastically reduces the Standard Model as to make the answers significantly closer?
Hi, I have this question I can not get around: ok I understand gravity curves space, and that this curve makes object "fall", the moon will "fall" towards the earth and this makes it orbit. We "fall" toward the earrth and we fell this as a force of gravity. My question is : WHY DO OBJECT FALL ?
Funny how the possible "near" cancellation of forces is similar to the near perfect cancellation between matter and antimatter in the early universe, where a tiny discrepancy led to all that we see.
6:44 Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle. {According to general estimates, this acceleration is: |a|=πcH: the equations of the gravitational field can be arrived at based on the Poisson equation ∆ф=4πGp, and for a weakly curved metric, the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)=pc^2. Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor. This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2, where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a|=πcH.} Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).* P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.** Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case. ------------ *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant). **) - n' =4,28*10^61; w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. Addition In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).
15 years ago, I was talking with a couple Germans in a restaurant, who, after a few too many beers, came up with the perfect solution to the problem: If we work in base 10^120, the predictions agree to within an order of magnitude, and the problem disappears. 😂
If Vacuum Catastrophe is so similar to Ultraviolet Catastrophe (adding bunch of energy modes results in calculated energy being too high), can’t we resolve it the same way? By quantizing these fields, or space? And aren’t these field already quantized?
My question is...is "empty space" really even a physically possible thing? Even in a vacuum with no atoms there would still be gravitational and electromagnetic fields due to distant matter, even if the fields were very weak. Gravity has an infinite range after all. Of course, I'm not a physicist, just my thoughts after wa tching.
That doesn't really matter though. The problem is our two best theories _predict_ vastly different values. Even if the situation isn't physically possible, _at least_ one of those predictions is presumably wrong so the question is which one and why.
Space is merely a byproduct of particles and their angular references to each other. There is no “distance”. There are only spherical functions for each particle where every point on each spherical function is a reference to some other particle.
@@anonymes2884Why is that a problem, though? Couldn't it just be undefined, like division by zero is in mathematics? (Come to think of it, the problems are superficially pretty similar.)
This got me thinking that could the size or amount of empty space affect the summing of all those waves? Right after the Big Bang, the space was relatively tiny, so the dark energy could have been very strong causing inflation. But then the Universe got huge and dark energy got weaker, until now that that there is more empty space due to expansion to make it stronger again so it can start to override gravity. This probably makes no sense, but this thought came to mind while watching this video. Keep up the good work, Don! You rock!
If you integrate all possible wavelengths, in a continuous wavelength domain, between the plank length and DC, you get a big number, but if you integrate over a discretized domain between the same endpoints, do you get a much smaller total integrated energy?
This exact topic is my focus for the next nine years, I've been exploring it from a different angle for a year. That of the fields not being all existent until some interval after the creation event (if that even happened at a single point in time). Time itself may not be fundamental but an emergent property-
Never forget, no matter how many ways we have to force order on complex numbers, the square root of -1 is neither larger nor smaller than zero, it's just different. Complex number, unlike their subset the Real number system, lack order. That means any physical activity that requires complex numbers to describe it, has some aspect that is time and size independent. Good Luck.
sir, I have a query, why we are just adding all the wave lengths, can't theses waves cancel each other as one wave trough cancelling others crest. then we will have only tiny amount of energy left.
Could it be that gravity and dark energy are the same thing? Gravity always acts attractive but if there are no massive objects close enough to eventually fall into each other in all other cases gravity attracts spacetime thus infinitely stretching it. Spacetime is like a piece of cloth that can be infinitely stretched and that makes its surface area larger and larger. Paradoxically objects are moving away from each other faster because of the attractive force of gravity.
I think the issue here is that gravity travels at the speed of light but the expansion of the universe is faster than light. So that suggests they're distinct phenomenon.
Dark energy has observable and measurable effects, therefore it is real. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it isn't real. Was air not real back before we could explain what makes the leaves move on the trees?
@@stargazer7644 It makes a ton of sense to me, but I understand why it wouldnt appeal to everyone, especially if they didnt dive deeper into the concept and only know physics from school.
We know what dark energy does, where it is, how much of it there is, how it effects spacetime, and that it cannot directly interact with normal matter/energy. How much more do you want? We’ll never have a picture of the stuff because it can’t interact with normal matter, including photons, so if you’re waiting for the day where a scientist points to a physical object and says “we found the dark energy, here it is.” Then you’ll be waiting forever.
I'm thinking of an analogous problem, the ultraviolet catastrophe. Is it possible that a quantization or other new model of the how dark energy manifests could similarly stop us from having to calculate the integral basically to infinity? Is there a fundamental reason that dark energy could not be packeted or exist at only discrete frequencies? My understanding is we havent had any way to actually put a stick into it, we back project its properties from the effect we need it to have on the shape of space. By all means, disabuse me of my immature understanding.
5:24 wait, even the Standard Model fails at something small enough? That doesn't sound right. And what? There aren't supposed to be lengths shorter than the Planck-length. Please tell me more about this.
Just asking, various things such as a creation discs around black-wholes send near light-speed jets of energy and particles off into space, might these cause an excitation in the "Higgs" field causing virtual particles to raise their energy state to actual primary particles accounting for expansion?
Einstein explained in his paper on special relativity and the problem with space for one object there is no space or time for to objects you can lay down equally leaf measuring rods And then measure the space between them you can count to Ticks 5:12 the clock and measure how long it took to lay down the rods. Therefore space and time are measurements if there’s cannot be anything in space because the space that’s in between things. Time is the measurement of events the clock is used. To measure between events
Would it be more correct to say that GR predicts there *is* a cosmological constant, but not what its value is? Although I suppose the standard model has ~20 free parameters that are fit to experimental data too, so yeah, probably it's equivalent...
An empty void seems to have waves. As I understood some time ago, particles and their antiparticles regularly appear and self annihilate in an empty void (vacuum). Particles can cast a shadow. A shadow is the absence of electromagnetic waves (light) obstructed by an object (particle in my example). Although the particle pair have self annihilated, the additional energy from the electromagnetic waves (light) must remain in some form. So what effect does this energy have on the empty void, what could we observe, has a model already included the action I suggest?
@@stargazer7644Got a pretty good handle on the particle / wave, the electromagnetic energy absorbed by casting a shadow should increase the temperature of "empty space". As I seem to recall, "empty space" has a temperature around 2.7K or -270.45C
If we integrate the fields' zero energy over all possible frequencies, how do we weight those energies? Put another way: how many lowest energy oscillators there is in a cubic meter for example?
I'm curious about mentioning 'precise' wrt predictions based on physics theories, it seems like most theories involve simple formulas which don't really have a precision issue, they're infinitely precise. IOW, the precision seems to be in the data used as inputs to a prediction/theory? Is that wrong?
So quantum field vibration frequencies cancel out almost entirely, but not quite and dark energy is what is left. In the early universe matter particles and anti-matter particles canceled out almost entirely, but not quite and our matter-based stuff is what's left. Would the ratios of those non-equities be related?
Why does the energy density of vacuum have to be the same, universe-wide? Maybe it's additive/subtractive an balances out if you consider the cosmos as a whole? What about black holes in all of this?
How long does this quantum space energy last? If the particles pop in and out of existence, isn't it incorrect to assume that all possible wavelength can coexist at a specific unit of time?
If true that all chemical elements have been discovered, is it equally true that all elements isotopes have been discovered? Are there more stable elements in space then in the earth? In a round about way, asking if it's more likely to develop future compounds in space rather then on earth.
IIRC, Feynman thought of *his* "virtual particles" just as a device to calculate large sums of possible interactions. For some reason, later and much younger physicists wrongly took them for real - meaning they (thought they) had (however briefly) mass and energy. The energy density of empty space, IMO, is that what is necessary for empty space to understand the world we live in (i.e., the information necessary to know all possible interactions of particles in a correct way). Because, that is what the Universe is and does.
Good discussion about the issues... but I have a question about the premise - does "empty space" really exist? How can you have "empty space" when curved-space-time and gravity are omnipresent? Does physics define "empty space"? Wikipedia has a definition for "void" but not for "empty space."
It's defined as in the video: space without any matter, radiation or fields imparting net energy (i.e. electromagnetic, gravitational etc. - it still has the fundamental quantum fields because in quantum field theory, as per the Standard Model, those are always present). The point is, regardless of whether it's physically possible, we have two theories that work extremely well in other respects but predict _vastly_ different values so the question is which, if either, is correct and why.
Doc...I have a question. Why does an LED light enable me to see more in a small dark hole than a traditional filament bulb flashlight. Is LED light a shorter Wave Length enabling that light to get into a smaller area?
@@rdizzy1 Yes, I agree with that, but still want to know why I can see deeper into a hole with LED light. Try it sometime in a dark room. Look into a deep bolt hole with a regular light and then look into the same hole with an LED light. You can see threads deeper into the hole with the LED light.
Are the lights of _exactly_ equal brightness ? I doubt you've checked that but IF so (and you've also checked that the LED light _definitely_ helps you see more i.e. you've systematically eliminated any bias) then the answer is more likely to be biology than physics - cone cells (that detect colour) in the human eye are sensitive to a range of wavelengths but rod cells, that work better than cones in lower light, are more sensitive to blue-green light and since incandescent bulbs tend to skew towards the red end of the spectrum and LEDs tend to skew towards the blue, light from LEDs may, on average, stimulate rod cells more effectively than light from an incandescent bulb in dim conditions. (all wavelengths of visible light are so incredibly short on our human scale that they'll _all_ "fit" - many times over - into any area of a size we're capable of seeing. Humans can _at best_ see things as small as around 5 or 10 microns across and even the longest wavelength of visible light is around 700 nanometres or 0.7 microns)
@@anonymes2884 Just from visual input the LED appears brighter than the regular light. Thus, may be the brightness rather than wave length. Thanks for the reply.
I've always had a problem with the Planck length cut-off that is used to avoid the infinity that would otherwise result. It seems very much a "hack" to avoid admitting that the model itself might be totally flawed.
0:10 There can be no contributions below the Planck length because the theory based on it wouldn’t work? Does reality just stop? Could someone recommend a good video explaining the sources and the consequences of the infinities alluded to? Thank you.
I guess I was venting like a layman circa 1900 demanding that if there is an “ultraviolet catastrophe”, then what is the answer? Just need to make a simple, but surprising guess I suppose. The rest, as they say, is just math.
5:03 (A speculative answer which suits both models of physics, at the end). This sounds like my speculation I wrote about 11 days ago, which goes onto traversing the chain of frequencies to come to islands where some functional structure of a reality can exist, even replicas of our own, if no quanta limit exists. It goes with my continual expansion hypotheses. Actually here, with some corrections: "This is like mine. It depends on how the universe is structured. If there is no quanta, there is no limit to the size of wave information. Which means, infinite wave forms below what we can observe. Wave forms are not empty, but are structure, which is energy, and as waveforms decrease in width they increase in relative energy. Quanta, may merely be an island of waveform which appears to us like a solid base, but is what can be expected in mathematics. At points down the waveform sizes, different resultant structures will appear with an apparent base, repeatedly. The only way to prove, is to travel the waveform set. Which is possible. However, will apparent variation hinder this, until you reach a relatively stable travel set of waveforms, or structure. This also will mean that the rate of change relative to each apparent base on the way down, will increase in frequency (Time) making such journeys irrelevant, reducing the likelihood of return, except as a sample. We would not normally directly detect this energy due to the averaging out of structures, making deep structures have little direct effect on us. However, we can draw upon the energy to make a negative flow up the frequency chain to us, or without a change in frequency, requiring a selection of sub-structure towards us, to maintain its definition, in order to do useful work, and not appear as an average. These are the sorts of things sort. Beyond a type omega minus civilization." The Answer may be as simple as, there is infinitive energy in space which produces drag on photons relative to the frequency of the photon to each waveform of empty space. This drag, produces a force upon the structure of the waveforms, and potentially some absorption. This drag is relative to the 4 hydrogen atoms of force in relativity. Thus, the two models go together. In such a case (as above), we can expect an uneven effect, as the effect is driven by the uneven distribution of forces and photons across empty space. We can expect subtle, local environment driven effects in different parts of the universe. Which can be sought to substantiate this hypothesis.
First of all: the relativistic answer is based on an observation, GR doesn't predict any empty space energy. And second, measurements of the casimir force give us a practical indication of the energy and thereby proove that the QM theoretical approach is wrong. So you are not comparing two theories, you are comparing a (possibly wrong) conclusion of an oberservation to a definitely wrong theoretical result.
Bang up job on this video, I got some ideals too but every time I talk to my chat companion he says that my ideals diverge greatly from the ideals of physics and then I ask them is there any experimental proof of the physics that I'm violating, the chat bot always says no it's quite plausible
What would you get if you considered the energy density prediction of General Relativity to be correct, albeit exactly half negative energy and half positive energy such that it cancels out perfectly in every way except for the Unruh Effect?
Not only GR (General Relativity) and quantum physics show different zero point energy levels of spacetime, but also objets on a galactic scale resist to obey Newtonian and GR laws. So, inner parts of a galaxy should spin faster than outer regions, but they don't. Neither WIMP-theory and not even the mathemagics as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) can not solve the problem. It might sound crazy, but in my humble opinion, non-compactified extra dimensions should be considered.
And it is even more complicated than that. Some galaxies do spin at the rates Newton and GR predict. Most do not. The former galaxies are assumed not to have dark matter for some reason.
@@stargazer7644 I completely agree. Since neither a physical theory nor an experimental proof for the WIMP-thesis exits, but there is something out there, we can't see or detect, simple logic tells us, there is a location with stuff out there, we don't have access to. At least not by known means. And this location encompasses the whole universe, since physical laws seem to apply in the whole visible universe. Hence there must be an undiscovered property of the fabric of spacetime itself, that does not fit into string-theory with compactified extra-dimensions. There is however am Ansatz of a theory, that should be developped further: It is the incomplete hyperspace-theory of Burkhardt Heim from the 50's, that could explain lots of mysteries; e.g. how stars manage to remina stable, although control science tells us a star can not be stable, since the time-constant for fusion is in the fs…ns range, while gravitational responses take years. When you attempf to drive a car with a reaction-time of 1 minute, you would crash. Dark matter and dark energy could also be explained, as strange reactions on strong pulsed magnetic fields, that use Lorentz- and Maxwellian force (aka repulsion force) to surpass nuclear fusion reactions without the inconveniant temperatures of supernovae.
As per usual, well above my pay grade. But worth the attempt of comprehension nonetheless! It seems we are talking about possibilities of possibles. I have some questions ...... What is the ratio of space contained in the universe compared to the mass of stuff within it? Could these 4 atoms worth of energy be roughly equivalent when the ratios are compared? The quantum world consists of a "fuzz" of frequencies that can combine to produce baryonic matter ...... are those frequencies constant? If not how can you add them to get your rather large estimate of energy. Given that adding waveforms up involves adding them in individual quanta (so as not to get infinities) how do we know the size of quanta we are dealing with? To be sure I do not expect answers, but the questions remain ..... Am I thinking of this in the wrong way?
Just to be courios, where you messure the absolute void with not afectation of any gravitational field????? Or the properties of the vacum are somthing that just emerge from the ecuations?
Could it be like the "ultraviolet catastrophe"? Are those added wavelengths added with the caveat that they should be separated from each other by the Planck length or are treated as if a seamless integral?
Wouldn't the probability of occurrence of an oscillation of each field rapidly become smaller as wavelength decreases, thereby ensuring a low overall vacuum energy even without excluding wavelengths smaller than the Planck length?
Well field 1 and field 2 mostly cancelling out but leaving only some tiny remnant reminds me of the idea that the early universe may have been largely equal amounts of matter and anti-matter and the matter we have is the tiny remnant after it all annihilated, which, would probably mean the initial universe had many times more material overall in it to start? Is there anything related between these things beyond that?
How do they justify adding all energy states together including the highest energy states. Shouldn't they consider the relative population of states? In other words, wouldn't it be more likely for lower energy states to pop up rather than higher?
I'm with you on that. Makes no sense why they feel they need to add together everything "possible" when they're talking about probabilistic concepts like "virtual particles", fields, and blah, blah, blah.
Is the universe really expanding or is everything following parallel paths through through hyperbolic space time. In which parallel paths would diverge and the rate of divergence would increase / accelerate with time.
Why the quantum model side doesn’t consider phase of the waves? I mean even if there are infinite possibilities at a given time most of them cancel out and the net result is matching the general relativity?
Wouldn't the imperfect cancellation of the quantum fields be a consequence of the same thing that lets a photon go through both paths in the double slit experiment? Basically they cancel each other out but occasionally, (very rarely) even after that there is one left behind. P.S. Isn't this a possibility of why there is more matter than antimatter? at some point, trough random chance things swung to the side of matter, and everything since has been the expansion of that little random chance?
1. In awe of humility built into the "scientific method". 2.Notion of "belief" is a quicksand whether viewed religiously or philosophically 3. Scientific position trumps ego always as methods are always happy to be disproven. 4. Alternative, endless cheap vacuum energy maybe within reach!
With the Casimir effect you can measure the difference in the vacuum energy between and outside of the plates, not the absolute value of the vacuum energy.
when ye first mentioned the huge differences in predicted value of empty space by relativity and quantum theories, my FIRST thought was to ask did they check the signs (negative and positives) and properly summed for them correctly? My initial thought is, like the matter/antimatter imbalance question, there should be roughly equal amounts of positive and negative energies so they SHOULD cancel out. However, like the matter/antimatter distribution in the beginning of the Universe, there was a minute imbalance in favour of matter over antimatter. Perhaps tis the same thing here, except in reverse, there's a minute imbalance in favour of negative energy in empty space? In the local frame, that imbalance would be insufficient to affect quantum or GR functions (so no atoms, people, planets, stars, galaxies would be pushed apart). But on the large scale, this imbalance has a cumulative effect that should add up to a separating push over the largest of scales.
could the high density of 10 to 120 explain the state before the bigbang? that must have been staggering-ly dense before ignition or collision or whatever set the course.
3:25 does energy equals mass work for dark energy? If so at what point does the universe become a black hole because of that? if you consider that the average density of TON 618 is about the density of Helium at 1atm and its SSR is about the radius of the solar system (if i recall correctly) so if we would fill our solar system with He at 1 atm it would become a black hole similar to TON 618 does this work for dark energy as well?
"Does energy equal mass work for dark energy" Yes, that's what he's showing. The mass equivalence for dark energy is 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. "If so at what point does the universe become a black hole because of that" You have to have increasing mass-energy density (collapsing matter) for that to happen. Dark energy is decreasing the average mass-energy density of the universe, not increasing it.
@@stargazer7644 they average density of a black hole (if you count the volume enveloped by the event horizon as the black hole) decreases with mass at some size/mass the average density is smaller than 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter
@@stargazer7644 so i roughly calculated it: a Black hole with a mass of 1*10^53 kg has a SSR of 1.48*10^26 m thus a Volume of 1.36*10^79 m^3 this results in a density 7,37*10^-27 which is slightly more dense than 4 H / m^3 so make it a few times heavier and its avg. density is smaller than 4 H per m^3 so its radius would need to be in between 15.64*10^9 and roughly 15.64*10^10 light years and weigh between 5*10^22 and 5*10^23 solar masses curiously the lower values are pretty close to the radius the universe would have without accelerated expansion 15.64*10^9 lys and its mass (estimated in a 1940 paper) 5*10^22 solar masses any physicist wanna chime in here?
@@TheRolemodel1337OK, fine. The Schwartzschild radius scales proportionally to the mass, and the volume scales with the cube of the radius so the density scales in inverse proportion to the mass. My math says to reach a density of 4H/m^3 you need a black hole of about 1.0*10^49 solar masses. That's 1.989*10^79 kg which is a whopping 26 orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the entire observable universe. A black hole that massive will have an event horizon 3.12*10^36 lightyears in radius which is astronomically larger than the observable universe. I don't think you have anything to worry about. Or maybe we're already inside of one.
I wonder if the fields are slightly out of sync and every once and a while there is constructive interference resulting in a rogue wave producing a flood of matter particles. Thoughts?
As the universe expands and stretches at a nearly constant speed the actual area covered grows much faster. And if this outer area produces energy or mass it could be dragging the universe along. Is this idea to simple. Comparing the areas of circles of different radius should help explain with very small examples. This does not explain the source of energy or mass but shows acceleration of area covered. Could this be the constant appearance of positive and negative mass or energy annihilating each other with some residual effect.
could Dirac have been right that there is a sea of negative energy states for particles and could this be a way to cancel out the enormous positive energy predicted by using the standard model?
Don a question from a mortal, what if the dark energy is the result of all that energy that the standard model predict? If it has so much energy that it should not be possible, it can be that that is the energy that pushes everything apart? And if that was the case, when it reaches an acceptable energy per volume what would happen?
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
As an experienced engineeer, I advise to just take the average of these two results and call any remaining difference a safety margin.
As an experienced civil engineer, we should take the average and round it to the nearest integer and then call it a day. Any difference would be not constructible any way.
😅
As an experienced unemployed person, I advise to just put off actually solving the problem until tomorrow, you really need to relax every now and then
@@Tinil0 why do tomorrow what can wait for the day after tomorrow.
That might explain why doors are flying off our planes.
"It's important for a scientist talking about speculative ideas to remember to not believe what they think" is something that should be taught in high school. Bless you for saying this!
I used to work on fire alarms. One time we had a problem where the alarm wasn't being heard in one room of a factory. Everything was installed correctly, the volume output of the device was where it should have been, there was nothing we could find that would explain why it wasn't working. Then they turned on the machinery. It turns out the frequency of the sound of the machine was canceling out the frequency of the notification device.
I designed over 9000 sounds (over the course of about one decade). I can confirm that resonance is indeed a tricky thing, and unexpected cancellations can occur in both the most bizarre ways, but sometimes also the "obvious yet not so obvious" manners as well. 😁
There was one particular sound I generated (of those 9000+) which essentially resonated at the exact frequency of the speaker tubes it was going to be played within. ANY other speaker system was fine... but not the typical place where the sound was going to end up being played. Lemme tell ya... THAT... was a *disaster*. 😂 I chased that issue around until I realized everyone was usin' tinier speakers (28mm?), but my test projects had 36mm and 40mm ones. 🙄 Yeesh. *ONE* sound out of 9000. Drove me nutttzzz.
@@Novastar.SaberCombatgood old resonance and destructive interference.
Standing waves in the path of the sound waves can also make life interesting.
Sound canceling?
@@jeebusk Yep.
@EhmannJasonno, the sound of the machinery and of the alarm canceled each other out.
Even though I wasn't much interested at first, I enjoyed this. Nice, clear and concise, exactly what physics *should* be. I'm a fan of elegant simplicity.
Physic is simple tho
This problem sounds awfully similar to the UV Catastrophe 100 years ago. A brand new quantum revelation is needed for this I think.
Or string theory :)
I think knot@@crazieeez
hehehehe@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer
I just posted nearly the same comment. They really do sound very similar.
Man, that was precisely my thought, too!
Awesome video as always! Another detail about where disagreement lurks between general relativity and quantum theory. Thank you for the information, Dr. Don
Hi Dr. Don. You rock dude.
No dude, you rock!
Santa Lincoln roared 👍
+1
Well, he rocks for a physicist. Having played in a band with physicists, it's not a high standard. Except for Brian May.
@@soaringvulture Brian May rocks enough for ALL the physicists, though.
42 is starting to look more and more correct.
Time to start working on the question.
@@anonymes2884 We know what the question is, it's in the books.
It is not incorrect, but what is the question.
What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?
That is not the question. Earth prevented from computing the true question due to interference from the Golgafrinchans. Furthermore, even without said interference, Earth was destroyed minutes before the question was scheduled to be complete. Also, it is suggested that it is impossible for the question and the answer to be simultaneously known in any given universe.
Adding up all wavelengths sounds like when I ordered EVERY toppings on my pizza (I could choose any with no additional charge). I thought I was smart, until I received the pizza, and realized that the total amount of toppings is always the same, and it is shared amongst my choices. So I got a little of everyhting.
🥦
When wavelengths are mentioned I think about electromagnetic radiation, which has frequency and amplitude. Would the amplitude of the "hum" decrease as the frequency increased, with the amplitude approaching zero as the frequency approaches infinity?
I've been a radio comms engineer for half a century, and the two waveforms are probably different things, and I'm talking garbage. But if you don't ask, you don't get.
@@petermainwaringsxthe frequency doesn't surpass the plank limit though.
Your mistake was in ordering pizza when the universe is really pasta.
exactly, there is one choice of frequency per piece of space/fabric according to your idea amirite?
Wow Don, In 10-minutes, you really outdid yourself on this one! Thanks for the great explanation. It was enlightening!
With this one, I think it's best to keep in mind a fundamental verification problem of theories of empty space.
How would one verify a theory of empty space, if empty space can't be measured directly?
The General Relativity approach appears to be subtractive - to take out all the "stuff".
The Quantum Mechanical approach also appears to be subtractive - to cancel out all the wavelengths.
I wonder if these two approaches don't produce different empty spaces? In theory, it appears that they do.
General Relativistic empty space seems to be some volume, but the quantum mechanical solution makes it difficult to even verify that much!
The heart of science is don't know.
By measuring the energy of vacuum? The Heisenberg rules are also measurable. Zero point energy is directly related. As far as I know....
When physicists talk about the Higgs Boson giving mass to other particles, they're actually talking about the zero-particle state (vacuum state) of the Higgs Field. If there were no residual fluctuations in fields in their vacuum state, this wouldn't work, and electrons would be massless (most of the everyday stuff around us would still have mass because most of the mass of protons and neutrons isn't from the Higgs).
'SPACE': Consider the following:
a. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them.
b. Light, 'electromagnetism', in the visual light portion of the spectrum fills outer space as well here on this Earth. That is why we can see things here on this Earth as well as far away stars, galaxies, etc.
c. 'Electromagnetism' ('em') also comes in other energy frequencies besides visual light: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared waves, Visual light waves, Ultraviolet waves, x-rays, and gamma waves. (Also in outer space and here upon this Earth at various locations).
d. Modern science claims that 'em' can interact with matter. QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms.
e. 'Gravity' also appears to actually exist, with at least varying densities if not even varying frequencies.
So, 'space' is energy itself, primarily energy fields with the primary modalities of gravity, electrical and magnetic.
'Time' most probably is the 'flow of energy', 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'.
And the current analysis indicates that both space and time always existed and never had a beginning (also as modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed).
* The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons.
What if such a thing as "empty space" or what we imagine as zero of anything doesn't exist , or doesn't exist in in our dimension. There is always us moving through something. Same with the concept of zero. I see how we use zero for counting but it might not really be just a value of opposing forces which also is never absolute zero but just zero average of those opposing forces... (different mathematics). I don't know...
This reminds me of the UV catastrophe that Planck hacked late in the 19th century.
I was about to say exactly the same. 👍
That is what I was thinking.
I imagine that's partly the inspiration for quantized spacetime theories?
I actually said the same in a separate comment, ha!
I was thinking it seem analogous. It seems those low frequency stacking is a problem and other physics stops it. This is lay person conjecture, but it also seems similar to the mystery of matter or how matter and anti-matter canceled except a small percentage did not.
As always, Brilliant video. Thank you Dr. Lincoln and crew.
not really, Brillian has a paywall, this doesn't.
LINCOLN!!!! I've been watching you for years now. Questions on Lincoln Logs of years ago aside, you do good work, and are probably underrated as a science communicator. Maybe that's because you concentrate on work as well as communication! Keep up the learnin' brother. #ENLEARNIFICATE!
Who is Lincoln? Who are you writing to?
@@patricklincoln5942GODS! You guys multiply!?!?!? AAAAGGGHHH!
@patricklincoln5942 he's obviously talking about the man in this video. His name is Don Lincoln, but even if I didn't know that, it would be easy to infer from the comment that the man in the video is named Lincoln.
@@mygirldarby: You are right. I think I was in disbelief, because it is my last name too. Not very common.
@@mygirldarbyNah, he’s clearly using the name of the 16th President of the United States as an exclamation, as in “Oh, God!”
There is only one thing on this topic that we can be fairly confident of, and that it we're missing some part of the answer. What that part is.... could be quantized spacetime, could be extra dimensions, could be a bug in the simulation code, could be a non-integer number of angels dancing on the head of each pin......
I feel that absolute "nothing" or zero doesn't actually exist. To define nothing you need something and therefore we are. Nothing of what? Nothing of something. Just the thought of nothing creates on a quantum level a change (something). Nothing doesn't exist. It's always negative and positive opposites of something.
Those non-integer angels like to dance at Pi beats per measure, I just can't follow along.
@@Aracuss Interesting philosophically, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can take the limit where less and less exists in a space. And even if not, the quantum vacuum energy actually also exists when we don't assume a vacuum, on top of the other stuff, and is still incompatible with GR.
Electric universe ⚡️
@@Aracussnothing exist outside of something.
great video! the "crazy" speculation is what leads to advancements, even if small steps. thanks for sharing…
Really fun and informative video to start my morning! Minor point, but the transition music is really loud so can be hard to hear when that's playing
8:20 If the big bang was supposed to have created equal quantities of matter and anti-matter, but there was a small inequity that caused more matter than anti-matter. Could a similar inequity be responsible for an imbalance types of dark energy. And could there be a relationship between the two phenomena?
I'm subscribed with the bell on and just today I realised that I haven't seen a video from this channel for good couple of months.......
Yeah that happens a lot,
Just click the video tab so you can go through them in chronological order.
Again, thank you, the public needs to hear your voice and others like you.
We need scientists to be honest like this too, and humble before the great mysteries of the cosmos.
Always let's keep the basic questions alive
As a programmer, I bet dark energy is the same as the usual root of all evil in the world
floating-point rounding errors.
"Wake up, Neo..."
If only the universe program code were annotated...
As a programmer, somebody is gonna make you walk the Planck.
After some thought agree with the two field approach ... The worst prediction in physics is often attributed to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant itself is a purely derived constant and not a fundamental one. So, which fundamental constant should we consider when addressing this problem? Another constant used in general relativity is referred to as Einstein’s constant kappa, which Einstein merely considered as a constant connected to Newton’s gravitational constant.
From a quantum perspective, the energy density of empty space is equal to or proportional to Planck’s energy density. Restating Einstein’s constant in terms of energy density, it becomes the Planck frequency squared divided by the Planck energy density.
If we express the cosmological constant in terms of frequency squared, we can determine the energy density of the universe. After rearranging some terms, the energy density of the universe becomes the Planck energy density multiplied by the ratio of the cosmological constant’s frequency squared to the Planck frequency squared.
This frequency squared ratio is crucial for understanding the cosmological constant problem. In mechanical vibration, the frequency squared ratio often serves as an amplification/damping ratio or coupling constant.
Therefore, we can assume that the cosmological constant’s energy density is coupled to the Planck energy density, accounting for the 120 orders of magnitude difference.
@@rogerkearns8094 No source available, that's why we have reverse-engineers (scientists).
Brilliant video! A major standstill in Physics explained in a short, simple, and clear way.
"The game's afoot" was at least written by Shakespeare before Doyle. Henry V, Act III "Once More unto the breech" speech
(from Henry V, spoken by King Henry)
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
@@GradyPhilpotton and on and on and on, I think the phrase originated prior from the infamous dispute between Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey, where Harvey writes: "The eagle does not catch flies"
Quentin Tarantino's favorite game
FFS
Most people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "The game's afoot", including script writers for modern adaptations. "Game" here isn't in the sense of "play" or "sport". It means an animal that is being hunted. Hunted animals will often seek a hiding place and remain there, so hunters would use dogs, other people, or whatever to scare the game out of its hiding place. The game would then be in the open, running away, and it was time for the hunters to start chasing it. Hence the cry "The game's afoot!", which grew into the wider sense of "After waiting, it's time to act".
4:02 does he mean permanent particles are created from empty space? Are these particles included in his calculation of total energy density? Or only the virtual particles are included?
Great video, thanks! I hope we'll have a resolution during my lifetime. Hurry!
Good reason to stay strong and healthy, live long and see the break through in science.
Seems like the curvature of space-time would diminish as the distance between objects increased. This might create the illusion of acceleration as objects reached areas of less curvature, like traveling at a constant speed on a winding road generally heading east versus a straight highway going due east.
Imagine showing your Physics professor maths in 1996 that suggested the "universal expansion" is accelerating only to have the discussion shutdown because, at that time, the "cosmological constant" was "known to be zero"... then, two years later... Lol
Top Quark!
The Hubble and the JWST telescope cosmological constants are different.
@@VatsekConstantly so.
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Ironically, my former physics colleague Don Franks was part of the team that first observed the top quark 🙂
@@Vatsek Which fits my prediction perfectly as to varying rates of the passage of time as one make observations further and further back in time - consistent with the two observations of gravitational waves traveling faster than light, the further the greater the difference in arrival time. BTW - gravitational waves are not demonstrating any "redshift" -
let THAT sink in 🙂
Maybe a stupid question but as a former radio repairman turn audio installer I can't help but wonder... When calculating the energy within under the Standard model, measuring every possible wave within (excluding based on Plank or not) are you, can you, calculate for Frequency Cancelation? E.g. the ever existing example of water ripples on a pond or the more current version comparison of noise cancellation. If any two waves are applied to each other what is the outcome? Complicated by calculating that interaction across all the waves used to calculate the energy in the Standard Model of course...
Is it possible the Frequency Calculation so drastically reduces the Standard Model as to make the answers significantly closer?
It's the best science outreach video I've watched in a long time: Informative, interesting, and thought provoking.
"It's the best science *_fiction_* outreach video I've watched in a long time: Informative, interesting, and thought provoking"
FYP. :)
Hi, I have this question I can not get around: ok I understand gravity curves space, and that this curve makes object "fall", the moon will "fall" towards the earth and this makes it orbit. We "fall" toward the earrth and we fell this as a force of gravity. My question is : WHY DO OBJECT FALL ?
Funny how the possible "near" cancellation of forces is similar to the near perfect cancellation between matter and antimatter in the early universe, where a tiny discrepancy led to all that we see.
6:44 Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space.
Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle.
{According to general estimates, this acceleration is: |a|=πcH:
the equations of the gravitational field can be arrived at based on the Poisson equation ∆ф=4πGp, and for a weakly curved metric, the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)=pc^2. Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor. This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2, where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a|=πcH.}
Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).*
P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.**
Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7.
However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case.
------------
*) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H,
|a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH,
intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction.
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H;
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant).
**) - n' =4,28*10^61;
w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L.
H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1).
By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old!
The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic).
r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr.
Addition
In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).
15 years ago, I was talking with a couple Germans in a restaurant, who, after a few too many beers, came up with the perfect solution to the problem:
If we work in base 10^120, the predictions agree to within an order of magnitude, and the problem disappears. 😂
ah yes, fizzicks
Not as stupid as it sounds.
Then all our science equations can not predict anything accurately anymore.
@@digitalife8719 that's the joke.
another round on rounding !
but I keep wondering if there is a base in which the natural constants make more sense.
If Vacuum Catastrophe is so similar to Ultraviolet Catastrophe (adding bunch of energy modes results in calculated energy being too high), can’t we resolve it the same way? By quantizing these fields, or space? And aren’t these field already quantized?
Worst prediction in physics: string theory. It predicts everything and nothing.
yea, it has too many variables
You are an excellent science communicator Don. thank you for sharing this with us
My question is...is "empty space" really even a physically possible thing?
Even in a vacuum with no atoms there would still be gravitational and electromagnetic fields due to distant matter, even if the fields were very weak. Gravity has an infinite range after all. Of course, I'm not a physicist, just my thoughts after wa tching.
Casimir Effect
That doesn't really matter though. The problem is our two best theories _predict_ vastly different values. Even if the situation isn't physically possible, _at least_ one of those predictions is presumably wrong so the question is which one and why.
Space is merely a byproduct of particles and their angular references to each other. There is no “distance”. There are only spherical functions for each particle where every point on each spherical function is a reference to some other particle.
@@anonymes2884Why is that a problem, though? Couldn't it just be undefined, like division by zero is in mathematics? (Come to think of it, the problems are superficially pretty similar.)
Yeah I'm not convinced empty space exists either. Seems like a silly assumption to make.
This got me thinking that could the size or amount of empty space affect the summing of all those waves? Right after the Big Bang, the space was relatively tiny, so the dark energy could have been very strong causing inflation. But then the Universe got huge and dark energy got weaker, until now that that there is more empty space due to expansion to make it stronger again so it can start to override gravity. This probably makes no sense, but this thought came to mind while watching this video. Keep up the good work, Don! You rock!
Haven't we been here before? The ultraviolet catastrophe, anyone?
If you integrate all possible wavelengths, in a continuous wavelength domain, between the plank length and DC, you get a big number, but if you integrate over a discretized domain between the same endpoints, do you get a much smaller total integrated energy?
Fan of Dr. Don Lincoln 🙌🏻
This exact topic is my focus for the next nine years, I've been exploring it from a different angle for a year. That of the fields not being all existent until some interval after the creation event (if that even happened at a single point in time). Time itself may not be fundamental but an emergent property-
Never forget, no matter how many ways we have to force order on complex numbers, the square root of -1 is neither larger nor smaller than zero, it's just different. Complex number, unlike their subset the Real number system, lack order. That means any physical activity that requires complex numbers to describe it, has some aspect that is time and size independent. Good Luck.
Dark energy is simply the centrifugal force of the rotation of our universe. Our universe is a spinning blackhole.
Dark energy is specifically the difference between centrifugal force and our observations
1:54 There is no bottom end of e=mC2 The question is how is it that matter the size of an electron has a charge etc.
“And remember: it’s ok to be a little crazy”
But it's more important to be crazy enough.
sir, I have a query, why we are just adding all the wave lengths, can't theses waves cancel each other as one wave trough cancelling others crest. then we will have only tiny amount of energy left.
I was thinking about the same
When waves cancel, the energy doesn't just disappear. You cannot destroy energy. The energy from each wave adds and is reflected back.
I've heard it said that the statement “the universe has exactly one electron” is a better prediction by 40 orders of magnitude.
lmao
Could it be that gravity and dark energy are the same thing? Gravity always acts attractive but if there are no massive objects close enough to eventually fall into each other in all other cases gravity attracts spacetime thus infinitely stretching it. Spacetime is like a piece of cloth that can be infinitely stretched and that makes its surface area larger and larger. Paradoxically objects are moving away from each other faster because of the attractive force of gravity.
I think the issue here is that gravity travels at the speed of light but the expansion of the universe is faster than light. So that suggests they're distinct phenomenon.
I still miss his moustache
What does the Casimir effect say about the value of the vacuum energy?
That it is negative. The Casimir effect gives you the difference in vacuum energy in two places, not the absolute value of it.
I hate it when scientists talk about dark energy like it's an actual thing and not just a placeholder term for phenomena we cannot explain.
Dark energy has observable and measurable effects, therefore it is real. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it isn't real. Was air not real back before we could explain what makes the leaves move on the trees?
@@stargazer7644
perhaps the problem is its name. sounds more like bogus than physics. perhaps it reminds of the aether theory.
@@josefanon8504Perhaps some time spent understanding why it is named what it is would help.
@@stargazer7644
It makes a ton of sense to me, but I understand why it wouldnt appeal to everyone, especially if they didnt dive deeper into the concept and only know physics from school.
We know what dark energy does, where it is, how much of it there is, how it effects spacetime, and that it cannot directly interact with normal matter/energy. How much more do you want? We’ll never have a picture of the stuff because it can’t interact with normal matter, including photons, so if you’re waiting for the day where a scientist points to a physical object and says “we found the dark energy, here it is.” Then you’ll be waiting forever.
Random question - could a Tau G-2 experiment practically be done? Would this probe more effectively the quantum foam of empty space?
I'm thinking of an analogous problem, the ultraviolet catastrophe. Is it possible that a quantization or other new model of the how dark energy manifests could similarly stop us from having to calculate the integral basically to infinity? Is there a fundamental reason that dark energy could not be packeted or exist at only discrete frequencies? My understanding is we havent had any way to actually put a stick into it, we back project its properties from the effect we need it to have on the shape of space.
By all means, disabuse me of my immature understanding.
5:24 wait, even the Standard Model fails at something small enough? That doesn't sound right. And what? There aren't supposed to be lengths shorter than the Planck-length. Please tell me more about this.
Just asking, various things such as a creation discs around black-wholes send near light-speed jets of energy and particles off into space, might these cause an excitation in the "Higgs" field causing virtual particles to raise their energy state to actual primary particles accounting for expansion?
Einstein explained in his paper on special relativity and the problem with space for one object there is no space or time for to objects you can lay down equally leaf measuring rods And then measure the space between them you can count to Ticks 5:12 the clock and measure how long it took to lay down the rods. Therefore space and time are measurements if there’s cannot be anything in space because the space that’s in between things. Time is the measurement of events the clock is used. To measure between events
Would it be more correct to say that GR predicts there *is* a cosmological constant, but not what its value is? Although I suppose the standard model has ~20 free parameters that are fit to experimental data too, so yeah, probably it's equivalent...
An empty void seems to have waves. As I understood some time ago, particles and their antiparticles regularly appear and self annihilate in an empty void (vacuum). Particles can cast a shadow. A shadow is the absence of electromagnetic waves (light) obstructed by an object (particle in my example). Although the particle pair have self annihilated, the additional energy from the electromagnetic waves (light) must remain in some form.
So what effect does this energy have on the empty void, what could we observe, has a model already included the action I suggest?
Particles are far smaller than all but the very highest energies of electromagnetic radiation. That's why we can't image one.
@@stargazer7644Got a pretty good handle on the particle / wave, the electromagnetic energy absorbed by casting a shadow should increase the temperature of "empty space". As I seem to recall, "empty space" has a temperature around 2.7K or -270.45C
@@tommiller1315 That isn't the temperature of empty space, as empty space has no temperature. That is the temperature of the CMB radiation.
If we integrate the fields' zero energy over all possible frequencies, how do we weight those energies? Put another way: how many lowest energy oscillators there is in a cubic meter for example?
I'm curious about mentioning 'precise' wrt predictions based on physics theories, it seems like most theories involve simple formulas which don't really have a precision issue, they're infinitely precise. IOW, the precision seems to be in the data used as inputs to a prediction/theory? Is that wrong?
So quantum field vibration frequencies cancel out almost entirely, but not quite and dark energy is what is left. In the early universe matter particles and anti-matter particles canceled out almost entirely, but not quite and our matter-based stuff is what's left. Would the ratios of those non-equities be related?
Why does the energy density of vacuum have to be the same, universe-wide? Maybe it's additive/subtractive an balances out if you consider the cosmos as a whole?
What about black holes in all of this?
How long does this quantum space energy last? If the particles pop in and out of existence, isn't it incorrect to assume that all possible wavelength can coexist at a specific unit of time?
If true that all chemical elements have been discovered, is it equally true that all elements isotopes have been discovered? Are there more stable elements in space then in the earth? In a round about way, asking if it's more likely to develop future compounds in space rather then on earth.
IIRC, Feynman thought of *his* "virtual particles" just as a device to calculate large sums of possible interactions. For some reason, later and much younger physicists wrongly took them for real - meaning they (thought they) had (however briefly) mass and energy.
The energy density of empty space, IMO, is that what is necessary for empty space to understand the world we live in (i.e., the information necessary to know all possible interactions of particles in a correct way).
Because, that is what the Universe is and does.
You talk about the predictions of these models. What do we observe? Which model is 'closer' to observation?
Good discussion about the issues... but I have a question about the premise - does "empty space" really exist? How can you have "empty space" when curved-space-time and gravity are omnipresent? Does physics define "empty space"? Wikipedia has a definition for "void" but not for "empty space."
It's defined as in the video: space without any matter, radiation or fields imparting net energy (i.e. electromagnetic, gravitational etc. - it still has the fundamental quantum fields because in quantum field theory, as per the Standard Model, those are always present).
The point is, regardless of whether it's physically possible, we have two theories that work extremely well in other respects but predict _vastly_ different values so the question is which, if either, is correct and why.
What’s the rationale for adding all those wavelengths to calculate the energy density using the standard model approach?
Doc...I have a question. Why does an LED light enable me to see more in a small dark hole than a traditional filament bulb flashlight. Is LED light a shorter Wave Length enabling that light to get into a smaller area?
LED lights are far more efficient at producing light, with normal bulbs most of the energy is wasted via heat.
@@rdizzy1 Yes, I agree with that, but still want to know why I can see deeper into a hole with LED light. Try it sometime in a dark room. Look into a deep bolt hole with a regular light and then look into the same hole with an LED light. You can see threads deeper into the hole with the LED light.
Are the lights of _exactly_ equal brightness ? I doubt you've checked that but IF so (and you've also checked that the LED light _definitely_ helps you see more i.e. you've systematically eliminated any bias) then the answer is more likely to be biology than physics - cone cells (that detect colour) in the human eye are sensitive to a range of wavelengths but rod cells, that work better than cones in lower light, are more sensitive to blue-green light and since incandescent bulbs tend to skew towards the red end of the spectrum and LEDs tend to skew towards the blue, light from LEDs may, on average, stimulate rod cells more effectively than light from an incandescent bulb in dim conditions.
(all wavelengths of visible light are so incredibly short on our human scale that they'll _all_ "fit" - many times over - into any area of a size we're capable of seeing. Humans can _at best_ see things as small as around 5 or 10 microns across and even the longest wavelength of visible light is around 700 nanometres or 0.7 microns)
@@anonymes2884 Just from visual input the LED appears brighter than the regular light. Thus, may be the brightness rather than wave length. Thanks for the reply.
Wow, that was the best lecture in physics I have listened to.....great speaker!
I've always had a problem with the Planck length cut-off that is used to avoid the infinity that would otherwise result. It seems very much a "hack" to avoid admitting that the model itself might be totally flawed.
We assumed that the infinities would exist at first but it didn't match experimental results.
0:10 There can be no contributions below the Planck length because the theory based on it wouldn’t work? Does reality just stop? Could someone recommend a good video explaining the sources and the consequences of the infinities alluded to? Thank you.
I guess I was venting like a layman circa 1900 demanding that if there is an “ultraviolet catastrophe”, then what is the answer? Just need to make a simple, but surprising guess I suppose. The rest, as they say, is just math.
5:03 (A speculative answer which suits both models of physics, at the end). This sounds like my speculation I wrote about 11 days ago, which goes onto traversing the chain of frequencies to come to islands where some functional structure of a reality can exist, even replicas of our own, if no quanta limit exists. It goes with my continual expansion hypotheses. Actually here, with some corrections:
"This is like mine. It depends on how the universe is structured. If there is no quanta, there is no limit to the size of wave information. Which means, infinite wave forms below what we can observe. Wave forms are not empty, but are structure, which is energy, and as waveforms decrease in width they increase in relative energy. Quanta, may merely be an island of waveform which appears to us like a solid base, but is what can be expected in mathematics. At points down the waveform sizes, different resultant structures will appear with an apparent base, repeatedly. The only way to prove, is to travel the waveform set. Which is possible. However, will apparent variation hinder this, until you reach a relatively stable travel set of waveforms, or structure. This also will mean that the rate of change relative to each apparent base on the way down, will increase in frequency (Time) making such journeys irrelevant, reducing the likelihood of return, except as a sample. We would not normally directly detect this energy due to the averaging out of structures, making deep structures have little direct effect on us. However, we can draw upon the energy to make a negative flow up the frequency chain to us, or without a change in frequency, requiring a selection of sub-structure towards us, to maintain its definition, in order to do useful work, and not appear as an average. These are the sorts of things sort. Beyond a type omega minus civilization."
The Answer may be as simple as, there is infinitive energy in space which produces drag on photons relative to the frequency of the photon to each waveform of empty space. This drag, produces a force upon the structure of the waveforms, and potentially some absorption. This drag is relative to the 4 hydrogen atoms of force in relativity. Thus, the two models go together.
In such a case (as above), we can expect an uneven effect, as the effect is driven by the uneven distribution of forces and photons across empty space. We can expect subtle, local environment driven effects in different parts of the universe. Which can be sought to substantiate this hypothesis.
First of all: the relativistic answer is based on an observation, GR doesn't predict any empty space energy. And second, measurements of the casimir force give us a practical indication of the energy and thereby proove that the QM theoretical approach is wrong. So you are not comparing two theories, you are comparing a (possibly wrong) conclusion of an oberservation to a definitely wrong theoretical result.
Bang up job on this video, I got some ideals too but every time I talk to my chat companion he says that my ideals diverge greatly from the ideals of physics and then I ask them is there any experimental proof of the physics that I'm violating, the chat bot always says no it's quite plausible
What would you get if you considered the energy density prediction of General Relativity to be correct, albeit exactly half negative energy and half positive energy such that it cancels out perfectly in every way except for the Unruh Effect?
Not only GR (General Relativity) and quantum physics show different zero point energy levels of spacetime, but also objets on a galactic scale resist to obey Newtonian and GR laws. So, inner parts of a galaxy should spin faster than outer regions, but they don't. Neither WIMP-theory and not even the mathemagics as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) can not solve the problem. It might sound crazy, but in my humble opinion, non-compactified extra dimensions should be considered.
And it is even more complicated than that. Some galaxies do spin at the rates Newton and GR predict. Most do not. The former galaxies are assumed not to have dark matter for some reason.
@@stargazer7644 I completely agree. Since neither a physical theory nor an experimental proof for the WIMP-thesis exits, but there is something out there, we can't see or detect, simple logic tells us, there is a location with stuff out there, we don't have access to. At least not by known means. And this location encompasses the whole universe, since physical laws seem to apply in the whole visible universe. Hence there must be an undiscovered property of the fabric of spacetime itself, that does not fit into string-theory with compactified extra-dimensions. There is however am Ansatz of a theory, that should be developped further: It is the incomplete hyperspace-theory of Burkhardt Heim from the 50's, that could explain lots of mysteries; e.g. how stars manage to remina stable, although control science tells us a star can not be stable, since the time-constant for fusion is in the fs…ns range, while gravitational responses take years. When you attempf to drive a car with a reaction-time of 1 minute, you would crash. Dark matter and dark energy could also be explained, as strange reactions on strong pulsed magnetic fields, that use Lorentz- and Maxwellian force (aka repulsion force) to surpass nuclear fusion reactions without the inconveniant temperatures of supernovae.
As per usual, well above my pay grade. But worth the attempt of comprehension nonetheless!
It seems we are talking about possibilities of possibles.
I have some questions ...... What is the ratio of space contained in the universe compared to the mass of stuff within it? Could these 4 atoms worth of energy be roughly equivalent when the ratios are compared?
The quantum world consists of a "fuzz" of frequencies that can combine to produce baryonic matter ...... are those frequencies constant? If not how can you add them to get your rather large estimate of energy. Given that adding waveforms up involves adding them in individual quanta (so as not to get infinities) how do we know the size of quanta we are dealing with?
To be sure I do not expect answers, but the questions remain ..... Am I thinking of this in the wrong way?
Doc you are just getting better and better! ❤
Just to be courios, where you messure the absolute void with not afectation of any gravitational field????? Or the properties of the vacum are somthing that just emerge from the ecuations?
So what's the experimental or observed value of the energy density of "empty" space?
Could it be like the "ultraviolet catastrophe"? Are those added wavelengths added with the caveat that they should be separated from each other by the Planck length or are treated as if a seamless integral?
Wouldn't the probability of occurrence of an oscillation of each field rapidly become smaller as wavelength decreases, thereby ensuring a low overall vacuum energy even without excluding wavelengths smaller than the Planck length?
Well field 1 and field 2 mostly cancelling out but leaving only some tiny remnant reminds me of the idea that the early universe may have been largely equal amounts of matter and anti-matter and the matter we have is the tiny remnant after it all annihilated, which, would probably mean the initial universe had many times more material overall in it to start? Is there anything related between these things beyond that?
How do they justify adding all energy states together including the highest energy states. Shouldn't they consider the relative population of states? In other words, wouldn't it be more likely for lower energy states to pop up rather than higher?
I'm with you on that. Makes no sense why they feel they need to add together everything "possible" when they're talking about probabilistic concepts like "virtual particles", fields, and blah, blah, blah.
I'm more curious if we can rip the space apart. Not bending, but ripping it. The fabric. What's behind it?
Is the universe really expanding or is everything following parallel paths through through hyperbolic space time. In which parallel paths would diverge and the rate of divergence would increase / accelerate with time.
Do black holes limit the amount of big wavelengths you can have depending on the direction ?
Why the quantum model side doesn’t consider phase of the waves? I mean even if there are infinite possibilities at a given time most of
them cancel out and the net result is matching the general relativity?
Wouldn't the imperfect cancellation of the quantum fields be a consequence of the same thing that lets a photon go through both paths in the double slit experiment? Basically they cancel each other out but occasionally, (very rarely) even after that there is one left behind.
P.S. Isn't this a possibility of why there is more matter than antimatter? at some point, trough random chance things swung to the side of matter, and everything since has been the expansion of that little random chance?
1. In awe of humility built into the "scientific method".
2.Notion of "belief" is a quicksand whether viewed religiously or philosophically
3. Scientific position trumps ego always as methods are always happy to be disproven.
4. Alternative, endless cheap vacuum energy maybe within reach!
Can't we measure the vacuum energy of empty space using the Casimir effect?
With the Casimir effect you can measure the difference in the vacuum energy between and outside of the plates, not the absolute value of the vacuum energy.
when ye first mentioned the huge differences in predicted value of empty space by relativity and quantum theories, my FIRST thought was to ask did they check the signs (negative and positives) and properly summed for them correctly? My initial thought is, like the matter/antimatter imbalance question, there should be roughly equal amounts of positive and negative energies so they SHOULD cancel out. However, like the matter/antimatter distribution in the beginning of the Universe, there was a minute imbalance in favour of matter over antimatter. Perhaps tis the same thing here, except in reverse, there's a minute imbalance in favour of negative energy in empty space?
In the local frame, that imbalance would be insufficient to affect quantum or GR functions (so no atoms, people, planets, stars, galaxies would be pushed apart). But on the large scale, this imbalance has a cumulative effect that should add up to a separating push over the largest of scales.
could the high density of 10 to 120 explain the state before the bigbang? that must have been staggering-ly dense before ignition or collision or whatever set the course.
3:25 does energy equals mass work for dark energy?
If so at what point does the universe become a black hole because of that?
if you consider that the average density of TON 618 is about the density of Helium at 1atm and its SSR is about the radius of the solar system (if i recall correctly)
so if we would fill our solar system with He at 1 atm it would become a black hole similar to TON 618
does this work for dark energy as well?
"Does energy equal mass work for dark energy" Yes, that's what he's showing. The mass equivalence for dark energy is 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.
"If so at what point does the universe become a black hole because of that" You have to have increasing mass-energy density (collapsing matter) for that to happen. Dark energy is decreasing the average mass-energy density of the universe, not increasing it.
@@stargazer7644 they average density of a black hole (if you count the volume enveloped by the event horizon as the black hole) decreases with mass
at some size/mass the average density is smaller than 4 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter
@@stargazer7644 so i roughly calculated it:
a Black hole with a mass of 1*10^53 kg has a SSR of 1.48*10^26 m thus a Volume of 1.36*10^79 m^3
this results in a density 7,37*10^-27 which is slightly more dense than 4 H / m^3
so make it a few times heavier and its avg. density is smaller than 4 H per m^3
so its radius would need to be in between 15.64*10^9 and roughly 15.64*10^10 light years and weigh between 5*10^22 and 5*10^23 solar masses
curiously the lower values are pretty close to the radius the universe would have without accelerated expansion 15.64*10^9 lys and its mass (estimated in a 1940 paper) 5*10^22 solar masses
any physicist wanna chime in here?
@@TheRolemodel1337OK, fine. The Schwartzschild radius scales proportionally to the mass, and the volume scales with the cube of the radius so the density scales in inverse proportion to the mass.
My math says to reach a density of 4H/m^3 you need a black hole of about 1.0*10^49 solar masses. That's 1.989*10^79 kg which is a whopping 26 orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the entire observable universe. A black hole that massive will have an event horizon 3.12*10^36 lightyears in radius which is astronomically larger than the observable universe.
I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Or maybe we're already inside of one.
I wonder if the fields are slightly out of sync and every once and a while there is constructive interference resulting in a rogue wave producing a flood of matter particles. Thoughts?
As the universe expands and stretches at a nearly constant speed the actual area covered grows much faster. And if this outer area produces energy or mass it could be dragging the universe along. Is this idea to simple. Comparing the areas of circles of different radius should help explain with very small examples. This does not explain the source of energy or mass but shows acceleration of area covered. Could this be the constant appearance of positive and negative mass or energy annihilating each other with some residual effect.
How many possible moving frames of reference are there for box for all speeds and directions? Would it be 10^120?
Unless spacetime is quantized, there would be an infinite number.
could Dirac have been right that there is a sea of negative energy states for particles and could this be a way to cancel out the enormous positive energy predicted by using the standard model?
Don a question from a mortal, what if the dark energy is the result of all that energy that the standard model predict? If it has so much energy that it should not be possible, it can be that that is the energy that pushes everything apart? And if that was the case, when it reaches an acceptable energy per volume what would happen?
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.