The worst prediction in physics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2024
- It seems that predicting the energy density of empty space should be a simple thing, yet it turns out that the two best theories of modern physics (the standard model and the general theory of relativity) make staggeringly different predictions. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don admits to this dirty little secret of physics.
Dark energy video:
• Big Mysteries: Dark En...
Quantum foam video:
• Quantum Foam
Video talking about why the Planck length is the shortest length consistent with the standard model:
• 20 Subatomic Stories: ...
Possible answers:
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
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.
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.
This problem sounds awfully similar to the UV Catastrophe 100 years ago. A brand new quantum revelation is needed for this I think.
That was exactly my thought! And the solution was light is only emitted in quanta. This is I guess why that space time quanta was suggested.
Or string theory :)
I think knot@@crazieeez
hehehehe@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer
I just posted nearly the same comment. They really do sound very similar.
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.
As always, Brilliant video. Thank you Dr. Lincoln and crew.
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?
Awesome video as always! Another detail about where disagreement lurks between general relativity and quantum theory. Thank you for the information, Dr. Don
Wow Don, In 10-minutes, you really outdid yourself on this one! Thanks for the great explanation. It was enlightening!
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.
great video! the "crazy" speculation is what leads to advancements, even if small steps. thanks for sharing…
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.
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.
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
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
You are an excellent science communicator Don. thank you for sharing this with us
Doc you are just getting better and better! ❤
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!”
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. :)
Always enjoy your work.
🔥
Thanks Dr. Don: As always very interesting.
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...
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.
Great content. Well done. I will watch these links with interest.
Wow, that was the best lecture in physics I have listened to.....great speaker!
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.
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.
Thank you Don. This was excellent and very accessible.
Brilliant video! A major standstill in Physics explained in a short, simple, and clear way.
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).
Fan of Dr. Don Lincoln 🙌🏻
Especially for me as I spent several weeks in the Collider Detect Facility in the mid 90's working to demonstrate our real-time computer product addressing a data acquisition requirement...
Ohhh thank you, I have literally never heard this and that was so well explained. I will need to watch it again... But amazing information. 😮
Worst prediction in physics: string theory. It predicts everything and nothing.
yea, it has too many variables
"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".
excellent - glad to see these again
Thank you for your ability and effort to make very complex concepts understandable to me, a layperson.
Why would in quantum field the energy density is the sum of all possible wavelengths? Wouldn't that imply that all possible wavelengths exists everywhere at the same time? That sounds like the upper limit of the energy density of space rather than actual energy density of space. Why this isn't the case?
The potential for a vibration is associated with a certain energy, sorta like potential energy
isn't there some weighting?
I don't know why that doesn't result in infinite energy everywhere, but all wavelengths / waveforms extend on infinitely, it's just that they weaken the further you go, and mostly cancel out.
I can't explain why some things cancel out and some things don't, but the important thing to keep in mind is that most things *do* cancel out. If a positive and negative charge occupy the same place, for example. Even things that don't per se have a positive and negative equivalent can cancel out by having an equal and opposite phase. Meaning the sum of all possible wavelengths usually adds up to nothing.
Fields extend throughout the universe. It’s like ripples on the surface of a pond. As long as the exciting force is present, so will the fields be. Pond ripples die down because of friction and some other reasons I won’t go into. But that’s not the case for these fields.
@@LB-vf2hmBecause it is quantized, at least I see an analogy with the black body radiation problem that was solved by quantizing light. Here Don indicates they take into consideration the planck length as a minimum and suggests the value may be further brought down by quantizing space and time.
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 🙂
Thank you for your wonderful videos Don you’ve taught me a lot
Another thought provoking and excellent video Dr. Don! I am certain that old Sherlock could have easily figured out this problem! 👍👍
Haven't we been here before? The ultraviolet catastrophe, anyone?
This is actually the best prediction in physics because it gives us a clue as to where to look next for getting a much better understanding.
the issue is it doesnt tell us where to look. there is no general starting point. its all just untestable extra dimensional nonscense.
Yeah, we just need to prove that a multiverse or higher dimensions are a thing (both of which are untestable and unfalsifiable, in other words fantasy) or super find proof for some exotic theoretical particles which we will need to build a particle accelerator so large that we would probably have to build it in space (it can take years just to get everyone to agree on building a bridge, let alone get a dozen nations to agree to give up some of their land to just to test some theoretical physicist’s pet math equation.
We need a new idea.
This was an excellent topic to cover
It's a valid point to raise the issue.
Regards
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.
I've heard it said that the statement “the universe has exactly one electron” is a better prediction by 40 orders of magnitude.
lmao
Great work, love ur videos
Very interesting video, sir. Thanks for speaking in a way I can understand. I have no knowledge of physics at all and I could hear you well. ❤👍✅💯
I still miss his moustache
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
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.
Interesting, I posed this question to you a couple years ago in the comments. Worth the wait.
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.
“And remember: it’s ok to be a little crazy”
But it's more important to be crazy enough.
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!
I love all videos from FermiLab
I'm shocked... SHOCKED... that quantum mechanics and general relativity disagree with each other. Oh, wait a minute... 😅
So do, does the fields exist beyond the expansion of the physical universe? Do we expanding into existing fields or do the fields expand as well? Does Planks Length expand with our expansion?
No of course not
@@theklaus7436 Your proof being?
planck length expansion probably could be measured if it were a thing
@@josefanon8504 Against what?
@@glenncurry3041
Afaik planck length is tied to the planck constant, which can be measured to an accuracy of 13 ppb for now.
Great stuff, many thanks.
This was fun. Is just great when the mysteries are acknowledged.
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.
This simply means that we are way off in our physics foundation somewhere, but we don't really know where we are off.
we know were wrong but we just dont know how were wrong. its very simple.
I didn't make a calculation mistake. It was um.. neuklidions! Yeah! Now please give me 5 billion dollars so I can prove to you they're real.
@@whiteobama3032 this money you get for the machine. do you have to spend the money on the machine or can you keep the money? "i was gonna look for hyperaxioms but i cahnged my mind. im gonna use the money for something else". is this possible?
"By the way, you shouldn't believe that idea. I certainly don't. It's important for scientists talking about speculative ideas to remember to not believe what they think."
Reminds me of a famous saying, something to the effect of: "One of the properties of a sophisticated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it."
Don't recall who said it...
Fred
Thanks Dr Don 💪
A good video on Physics in problem. I like your dark energy which is very small here even we know in universe only 5% is known. Every curious people always feel ' I've it' . From known geometry alone we can get a low value unit is how you express it. Planck have a good reasons for dimension we play.
Guitar string. Bound at both ends. Strum. There are infinite resonate frequencies, but only a limited amount of energy.
The math is left for student practice.
you sir, are the most down to earth humble smart man.
Good stuff, Doc.
thank you for all you do. you really help me tho the covid years
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.
Dr. Don, you are by far my favorite particle physicist. I thought you would realize that the energy density of empty space question all comes down to '42' .
Keep up the good work
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
I'm encouraged that the JWST is bringing curiosity, mystery, wonder and exploration back to physical sciences and bringing an end to the long period of what Kuhn would have called "normal science" and reigniting a new era of "revolutionary science.
In this influential work, Kuhn introduces the concept of "paradigm shifts" in the history of science. He describes how scientific communities operate within dominant paradigms or frameworks during "normal science," where researchers work within established theories and methodologies. However, Kuhn also discusses "revolutionary science," where new paradigms emerge, often through periods of crisis or anomalies challenging the existing framework. These shifts mark major changes in scientific understanding and practice.
Thank you for sharing. Has fermilab calculated the island of stability for antimatter yet? Or degenerate matter to a plank quantum state and BEC? Keep up the good work.
P.S. Please get a cosmic neutrino background project going for humanity. 😊
Dr Don is going strong. Great video
I didn't know about the problem and possible solutions but my first thought was about some cancellation and dark energy being a difference leftover. It may be false but its nice to come up with same idea as some great physicists :)
Fascinating.
First time happening upon this channel and love it. Don Lincoln's presentations are quite comparable to Neil Degrasse Tysons. Both very informative and entertaining. I'm a lay person with a High School education, but I''ve also been involved with Amateur Radio for over 50 years, so I have a grasp of basic physics. I can't say enough about this video and look forward to watching many more. Thanks so much for the effort here.
I think perhaps the Standard Model could be correct under the idea that the energy density of 10^120 per volume of space could be the total energy available to that volume of space from the "bulk"/the Bulk if it were to be given over all at once (perhaps if all virtual particle possibilities happened all at once and the same time, that is how much energy would be there in that volume). Love this stuff! What a wild brain stretcher!
So a statistical fluke could create a whole universe?
The answer is an expansion/contraction oscillation matrix between points in space and antispace. Expansion occurs at two times the speed of light over a distance equal to the Planck length. This cancels infinite frequencies and explains gravity and the warp of spacetime.
More deep dives like this, please.
Brilliant and succinct video
Given the two models' calculations involve one saying "there's negative energy density creating anti-gravity, but it's suuuuuuuper tiny and implies empty space is actually pretty empty" and the other is saying "empty space is more charged with energy than a bazillion known universes in every cubic meter," I am strongly inclined to think that the latter is incorrect since we aren't seeing a universe that _behaves_ like it's that densely packed _and_ that would mean "empty space" is not at all empty.
This suggests to me that, of the two, relativity's prediction - and, therefore, model - is the more accurate one, though I certainly will buy that it is either accurate coincidentally or that it is not actually at all right... but still is much closer to right than the QM one.
Given all the issues with the theories of QM, I think that is the model that is most likely to change and evolve as we learn what is _actually_ going on, and I applaud your work in trying to do so. I expect that QM is going to change in its accepted models a great deal, possibly with enormous paradigm shifts, and that little to none of it will involve string theory's extra dimensions nor even quantized spacetime, but rather something even more fascinating that will also neatly deal with the biggest problem it poses: the inherent contradiction of "no hidden variables" and yet "quantum entanglement" causing two things to have the shared state that one influences the other without either retaining memory of the incident that linked them.
I won't pretend I fully grasp QM. Bell's Inequality and the experiments that demonstrate it always leave me with a sense that there's a missing experiment, but I only manage to grasp it while watching or reading about it and the limits of my understanding show themselves when I try to even recreate the explanation so that I can formulate the experiment I intuitively feel is lacking. But no explanation I have yet seen actually answers why that experiment can't exist or would have results that align with the current QM models and theories.
All of which has me convinced that there is something _grossly_ wrong with the QM theories we currently have. Not that they're ENTIRELY wrong, but that we're missing something paradigm-defining.
I've always though it odd that we assume the apparent faster motion of the objects further away from us as expanding faster than closer things. I guess I've been thinking too geocentrically.
If I imagine a ball packed with marbles and all the space between the marbles suddently expanding then, seen from the marble in the center, the outer marbles move away from the center much faster than the marbles next to the center one. Makes sense if the "inflation" wasn't from when there was a single point in space but spread out in all the matter in the universe at the time of inflation. I'd love to hear a discussion about this "theory" though?
I wonder how this question would look when formulated in a Wolfram physics framework?
The idea of infinite (extremely large?) dimensions in the early universe collapsing down to three apparently produces a similar lensing effect that would explain red shift without requiring an expansion of space, and I gather there is no empty space since it's created from hypergraphs (according to my very rough understanding).
Amazing science communication here!
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.
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!
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.
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.
Perhaps we can deduce the energy density from the fact that it's mass taken over huge distances and scales curves the Universe so that light from distant objects is reddened. The energy density also gives an excess of microwave radiation as it forms mini bangs that gives space a dark body spectrum. The mini bangs cause comic rays, the production of high energy particles that quickly decay into quarks and leptons. In this hypothesis the concept of curved Time negates the need for a single creation event.
The energy density is large but is limited by the formation of many bangs that create cosmic rays. Remember the Ultraviolet catastrophe... it's the same deal.
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.
The problem is trying to make the phenomenon which carries the label "Dark Energy" be the same as the Standard Model's energy density. Some, perhaps many, physicists try this (as Don did here) but strictly from a phenomenological perspective *there is no reason to think the two really are the same phenomenon.* We _observe_ the acceleration of the expansion of space and label it "Dark Energy" and that observation is not going to go away simply because the SM energy density calculation is different.
Excellent!
From black hole thermodynamics we know that horizons can only encode a certain amount of information. The cosmic horizon can therefor only encode a finite number of modes and if we sum only over that number of modes, the zero point energy adds up roughly correctly (within our measurement uncertainties). This has been known for a while. Importantly, the cosmic horizon has the same radius as the Schwarzschild radius of the matter in the universe.
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).
Strange how we ask questions we may never know, but trying to figure them out is part of the fun I suppose.
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.
Supposition: 1) The Universe does run on rules and they may be explicable 2) We are indeed zeroing in on those rules, not constructing unrelated if useful models. So what does this enormous difference in prediction suggest?
For all their power our models of the universe are not remotely 'accurate'. More, that we otherwise perceive so little of their gross inaccuracy suggests we are a long way from 'real understanding'. Likely a 'Grand Unified Theory' is not remotely reachable from where we find ourselves.
Good - we have far further to go and much more to learn before we can even remotely claim the understanding we incorrectly think we possess.
A challenge makes things interesting!
Bad - we have far further to go and much more to learn before we can even remotely claim the understanding we incorrectly think we possess.
Are we even capable of getting there?
“A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.”
-Voltaire
There is one force in the universe, the electromagnetic force.
Wallace Thornhill explained it pretty clearly for the last few decades. Sadly mainstream science would rather ignore him and the naked emperor than listen to someone honest.
Doubly sad is he could have explained it himself not long ago.
Well, I guess he still is thanks to the technology we have today.