Dark Energy, or Worse: Was Einstein Wrong?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2008
- In this National Science Foundation program, Sean Carroll, a senior research associate at the California Institute of Technology, sheds light into the "dark side" of the universe that may actually be the key to unlocking the mystery that is the universe. The type of matter we're familiar with and encounter everyday - atoms and molecules - only makes up about 5 percent of the universe. The remaining 95 percent is believed to be dark matter and dark energy. Explore the history of dark energy and dark matter by following Einstein's path to uncovering the theory that sparked a change in the world of astrophysics and the controversies behind that theory.
I have watched many many science-oriented videos on TH-cam, and Sean Carroll has the best delivery.
+LindaStevensBZ Yes. He organizes his presentations well and he's one of the very few who have so much confidence, energy and enthusiasm that their presentations of sophisticated material are as entertaining as they are informative.
Definitely.
Yes. I like both he and Copeland
yeah he's amazing, would love to meet him. i wish he had the popularity of ND Tyson.
He is good but i strongly recommend you to watch Wal Thornhill and other electric universe scientists on their youtube channel. (thunderbolts project)
WOW! As an engineering student in college about 25 years ago with an introductory course in quantum mechanics, this talk was invaluable to my understanding of the reasoning for dark matter/dark energy over just tinkering of classical/gen. relativity for large scale observed gravitational deviations. A double entendre, I think ;-). A super concise talk by a very good speaker, a smidge above the layman, but not so bogged down in math to be painful for someone at my level (slightly above coffee table talk), with a reference for further study. Highly recommended for a first toe-dip into dark matter/energy. If you want just the very quick observational argument for DM/DE start at 35:40 through to about thirty nine thirteen, if this doesn't wet your whistle, so to speak, I don't know what will.
It must be pride that did not let moderation and humility kick in and prevent scientist made fool of themselves.
Actually the balloon analogy helped me to finally understand expansion. It was pretty clear that it wasn't expanding into anything, but it was crystal clear why everyone seems to be at the center of the expansion. Raisin bread did confuse me.
Carolin Crawford's astronomy lectures are awesome too, for anyone interested
Her's is more recent. 😄
I have questions. How can gravity move at the speed of light and how can light be the fastest way to transmit information. Take the Sun and Earth, it takes 7-8 mins. for light from the Sun to reach Earth so if light was the fastest way to transmit information then the Earth is not moving where the Sun is now but where the Sun was 7-8 mins ago and wouldn't that slingshot the Earth and other planets out if that was true? Also wasn't gravity instant when Newton made his theory and if light isn't the fastest way to transmit information doesn't that really hurt Albert's theory since a big chunk of it is all about how light is the fastest way to transmit information?
todd joseph take a look at how Hub drew a straight line through the scatter plot. Perhaps you might consider gravity as a force rather than some thing that travels. (A feature of space-time itself). I love the way you are thinking.
this was a great lecture. thank you for this.
FYI ligo actually has found slight variations from gravitational waves caused by colliding black holes which may indicate relativity breaking down for the first time but more data is needed and reproducing the observations by other astronomers
thanks for this, helped me find the paper. For anyone looking it's here
arxiv.org/abs/1612.00266
I just wanted to say i like the way Sean Carrol explains things.
Presentation 'actor'
Martin: You like the well-rehearsed atheist explanation.
He's such a great lecturer that it kinda pisses me off, in a mostly-joking way.
I can't get past that he sounds almost the same as Alan Alda myself.
medexamtoolsdotcom
His wife probably tutored him.
She’s probably gunna hit on me.
I'm surprised they had to put up a disclaimer 4 Sean Carroll. It's definitely not necessary. If anything they should be saying they hope their views reflect the opinion of Sean Carroll.
+John Morris: Maybe its just a matter of form but it does seem gratuitous and insulting. It's not as though Professor Carroll might be some sort of crackpot.
John Morris ...that disclaimer one sees ("the opinions expressed in this program do not NECESSARILY reflect those of ____") is not something put up because of anything "controversial" or due to "heterodoxy". This is a typical, often used disclaimer, usually tagged on at the end of these kinds of talks to indicate to viewers that Mr X or Ms Y is not representing whatever medium on which it airs. It does not represent any kind of judgment by the channel or hosting university or foundation, etc. This is just a way to let viewers/listeners know that the speaker is putting forth his own views. It doesn't mean that no one in that outfit wouldn't agree w/him or her.
It's just a legal formality. Nothing personal.
NSF gets money from congress. Congress is made up of individuals that advocate creationism. Any serious discussion of cosmology will take the big bang as a given. So either we get a disclaimer or someone will aim for a seat on the science committee to shut crackpots like Carroll up. I mean, obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't quote scripture once!
They must believe in the Copenhagen interpretation kek
Isn't red/blue shift an indicator for movement and speed while standard candles are used for distance?
impressing lecture...
Armchair cosmologists in the comments section who never studied any physics or astronomy: you cannot learn what you think you know
Hi Wee Wee, That's a bit of a wild comment. I have met many armchair scientists who manage to hold their own in technical conversations and sometimes contribute valid data. I would think those comments should be directed to the modern cosmologists who look us all in the face and tell us there is only 5% of expected matter in the universe, now If you purchased a 10 foot length of 2x4 wood and the vendor gave you a 6" piece and charged you for 10' then you would have something to say, but when modern cosmologists tell us there is only 5% of matter in the universe the world accepts it. To my mind an error of 95% tells me something is very, very wrong and more research is needed , but no we are then told that the missing matter is "DARK MATTER" that cannot be seen , cannot be detected . O How convenient and how unbelievable. A more believable answer is that the missing matter is occluded by other stars. Just one close star would occlud a cone of space which gets bigger the farther you go out. It may not be the answer but It would go part way to answering the huge loss of matter. Another part answer is that gravity lensing is far more widespread than we think and many ,many, pure images are in evidence and represent nothing but would look,like real stars but are in reality just the universes cinema.
regards MoK
Mo King *You cannot learn what you think you know*
Dark matter is real and it can be measured and we know a lot about it. At least we'd know a lot about it if we wanted to.
Matter interacts very strongly with dark matter and we literally see dark matter doing what it does every day...even right this instant as you read this.
What's now called, "dark matter" is what used to be called, "the aether". at least back before the physics geniuses dismissed the aether as not existing.
The reason we can't see dark matter is the same reason we can't see the air around us. It appears invisible but it's there. If you understand why you cannot see the air, it goes a long way to explaining why you can't see dark matter.
"You cannot learn what you think you know"
you do understand that this cuts both ways right? armchairs and ivory towers notwithstanding.
Kevin T I'm just advocating formal education over homespun ideas
It's really not acceptable that these people present their best guesses as scientific fact.
Alex: And it's really not acceptable that these atheists get together for a circle-jerk explanation of the random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as stated by Sherlock Holmes. That is to say, if the God idea cannot hold water as a scientific explanation (e.g. the age of the Earth, in the case of the biblical one), the truth must be in one of the possibilities that remain. I know, "a random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe" is a scary idea. I used to subscribe to the God idea.
@@Rocksite1 Atheists say the stupidest shit. I AM not scared of anything especially false information promoted by clueless militant atheists.
See 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce that. GOD=7_4 Theory provides exhaustive evidence of GOD & God-incarnate - GOD704.wikia.com . Please read that and let me know exactly what data you have a problem with.
@@BradWatsonMiami Why is it not acceptable for a group of people to get together to share a common viewpoint? Does that not sound a lot like church? If you're gonna say this is not acceptable, you need to be fair on both sides. Why is this meeting a "circle-jerk" and church isn't? How is this false information? Why are you labeling atheists "militants"? I'd wager they're the least "militant" type of people out there. Have you ever heard of atheists starting war, chopping heads off, going on shooting sprees. I know I haven't, can't say the same for people following a religion.
Yes, without the humility of at least conceding it is your best guess as we would in discussion of these matters.
Is it worthy and correct the same infamous Einstein's Formula E=mc²ß when related to the Dark Matter that Einstein did not know when he formulated his infamous Theory? Which would it change in that Formula considering the Dark Matter & Dark Energy? Thank you so much. An answer would be much appreciated.
Experiments show how conversion of matter into energy through its antimatter brings about gamma rays with exact opposite momentum.
Call it dark knowledge since dark matter or energy has never been proven.
Actually they have been proven. The Universe is expanding and accelerating, that requires energy. It's called dark energy because we don't know much more about it. Galaxies have been observed that require more than the mass of the visible matter to explain them. We also have gravitational lensing examples, images of which you can look up and see, that require much more mass than is visible. It's called dark matter, again dark because we don't know much more about it. But both are proven to exist.
They are only proven to exists if you assume that GR is indeed true. If you look from a slightly different point of view you could say that GR must be incomplete because it requires a bodge in form of dark energy and matter to make it work in large scale.
You could say that - but you would be wrong.
@@onemaninaboat MOND is on the way out.
Agree!
Why is it that the deepest intellectual topics always attract the stupidest comments?
Religion.
lazychimp123
I'm guessing you're right.
They keep telling me that if I had so much faith as a grain of mustard seed that I could move mountains, but I have yet to have them tell me how much faith it takes to raise the temp of a cc of water by a single degree.
*****
hmmm so as faith approaches its maximum, it will always be proportional to any arbitrary amount of force minus a "not quite enough" constant... Interesting.
I'm going to go unplug my toaster and have faith that unless an electrical current flows through the heating elements that it can't make toast.
Everyone should probably seek shelter in their basement. Dividing by zero is a messy business.
LOL
*****
Odd... this posting of yours was marked as spam.
I don't see anything remotely spammy about it.
YT is strange.
*****
Took a look at the linked video and I'm not sure I'd call it mediocre exactly. It's what I think of as an interest provoking popular science vid... for people who aren't allergic to science but aren't actually equipped with the tools to dive right in.
Jason though looks like he's bypassed barking mad and gone right to full metal straightjacket material.
In the Bullet cluster data, why do astrophysicists use General Relativity to measure the mass of the cluster via gravitational lensing if the theory is possibly incorrect at such scales (due to the discrepancy in the theoretical prediction of the galaxy rotation curves through General Relativity and the observed rotation curves)?
There is not an evident challenge to GR in the error because it is not consistent with regard to any known force law, not just GR. Thus, the observations imply a new material or mechanic that hasn't been accounted for, rather than a breakdown in the force laws that already exist.
To put it differently, if we look at the areas that behave weirdly in the outer portions of galaxies, they still act in excellent agreement with GR locally and macroscopically. There is just something strange happening over the middle scale that modifies the expected GR results. The results best mirror well know fluid mechanics situations, so our first guess is that some filler substance (a form of matter) that we can't easily see (thus dark) is modifying the behavior of stars in the outer parts of galaxies.
There is a very different strangeness at the largest scales, and GR has an explanation for that it just isn't one that people wanted to see. The basic GR equation is F(x,y,z,t) - G(x,y,z,t) = 0, where F and G are the respective expressions from the Einstein equation. But there is no requirement that there be a zero on the right hand side. If it were any constant the local rules we are used to would still hold unchanged, up to a transitional scales determined by the value that replaces 0, though values of magnitude >= 1 (reformulated where c = 1) would create very strange universes indeed. Currently it is believed that the value is very close to zero.
Also, it is very important to remember (and this is a little bit of a trade secret) that people are very rarely able to use GR directly, it is just too complicated without some simplifications. Instead, scientists almost always utilize various approximations. These are very good approximations in their respective frameworks, but the hard questions are always about where the frameworks begin to break down (at the edges). This is also true in other areas of study, so it shouldn't be a surprise, but it should be remembered.
Newtonian gravity functions as the best known approximation of GR, but a number of other frameworks exist.
+David T (A thought) Hey David T. Thank you for your reply. I completely understand the last portion of your message regarding the difficulty in the usage of General Relativity. I always assumed that physicists had fully solved the equations necessary to describe the motion in galaxies and clusters. I have read many papers regarding the research without realizing that most of the time, approximations are used.
In the sense of proving the math is consistent, yes, that has been solved. In the sense of describing any given situation, there are (at least) 16 entries in the tensor, each of which is a compound expression with multiple terms, even for relatively simple problems.
Occasionally, you will hear mention that we still haven't solved the 3 body problem, which is both true and misleading. We know a great deal about the 3 body problem and we know what particular solutions tend to look like. The problem is that GR is quite non linear, and so it has all the complications of chaos thrown into the mix.
Beautiful. Consistent. But not simple by any description.
@Michael Martinez I had the same question in another part of the comment section. I think in this paper:
arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0790v2.pdf
they attempted to used modified gravity (TeVeS to be specific) to do exactly what you're saying. I think they also provide arguments for why they can largely use regular GR formalism in the lensing calculations, maybe with arguments in line with what @David T is saying (I didn't read the paper too carefully and it's not really my field so a bit difficult).
Yes, that is basically it. If one carefully makes certain well placed assumptions, they can get a very good approximate answer framework to a certain general circumstance. You can then assess how that model compares to other models, existing observations, and how it deals with extreme circumstances.
They are, in a fundamental way, all similar to the standard approximations: assume point particles unless the spatial volume is relevant; assume distributed force application unless deformation is relevant, etc.
If fact, many are just refinements on the standard assumptions, special relativity can be considered to amount to using the assumptions: assume a plane wave structures unless spatial curvature (as opposed to simple boosting translations) is relevant, assume compression deformation only unless secondary forces are relevant.
How can a particle go through both slits in a two slit experiment? And what collapses the wave-function? And what causes the interference pattern when the detector is turned off? When we turn the detector back on, forms only bands, why?
Sean Carroll is absolute beast mode; this presentation is incredible.
No, there is no such thing as "dark matter". Yes, Einstein was wrong.
Next question?
Actually, the evidence for dark matter is better than the evidence for a creation event. Or galactic expansion.
The dark matter hypothesis cam as the result of direct observation not fitting theory, though it is far less mysterious than most media would have someone believe. By dark, people just mean, non-emitting. A vast cloud of interstellar neutrons would fit the bill if they had a different decay rate in intergalactic space. They might...we can't test it. We have no reason to think they do, but we don't know for sure.
And what does this have to do with Einstein? Oh, maybe the GR equations are wrong? Sure. But that just means that everything else we have to work with is even more wrong. And Newtonian Gravity and QM are straight out. The entire adventure of calculus and computers was just ego stroking (only locally relevant self entertainment).
Sure let's go with that. Why are you using that computer again? I don't mean offense, I'm just confused by your apparent logic.
David T So you believe in the "dark" side.... Very well, but it isn't scientific.
earlysda Isn't scientific? How so?
To paraphrase astronomers:
[
Hypothesis: galaxies follow basic orbital laws.
Observations: galaxies mostly follow basic orbital laws, but not quite.
Calculation: back calculate (curve fit) what would cause the deviation from orbital laws, based on the physics we already know.
(Translate results to English and our new, adjusted...)
Hypothesis: galaxies follow orbital laws, except in the outer/fringe regions where there is apparently something behaving like additional mass (i.e. matter) adjusting the outer galaxy's orbital motion. We can't see it in any part of the optical spectrum so it must be dark (by definition; since it is not lit up...).
Since that is a bit of a mouthful, we'll say, "standard orbital motion, plus dark matter."
Hey, is anyone listening? Guys? I know we're astronomers and not astrophysicists, but come on! This is interesting. NO! We are not doing our math badly! No we won't shut up. yes it makes things more complicated! No it is definitely not going away.
Fine. We'll start our own conferences where it is OK to talk about things in the universe that don't follow the simple rules that describe all you want there to be.
]
Many years later...physicists say,
[
Whoa! The Hubble constant came out wrong. And it's more wrong the better our data gets. We need to fix the math.
What do we already have? Nothing?
Um...the astronomers have been talking about "dark matter" for a few decades now...maybe that would solve the problem!
It helps! We're keeping it...but it is not enough!
]
Now the physicists are desperate:
[
Well, if we can't fit any more dark matter in our models without everything turning into a very different party, what are our other options?
Well,as far as we can tell, the universe is made up of two basic and interacting things: there's matter, and there's energy. And we've already covered the matter part.
So I guess it is dark, because we can't see it, and energy, because it is not matter.
Hey! Einstein talked about this in his big blunder, the Cosmological Constant. It is an energy term! Maybe he was smarter than we even thought he was! Let's resurrect it and throw it at the new problem. It seems promising!
Phew! OK, Dark Energy it is then. And sound confident about it!
]
So my opinion is not so much about belief. To me it about there being something not quite right in the combination of our physics theory and observation. Part of the error is in the matter part of the calculations, either we're putting in the wrong numbers for the total matter because we can't see it (dark matter), or we are somehow misrepresenting the matter that is there because we can't see the error itself (a dark component to matter). Either way, there is something dark (unseen) and matter oriented (just saying "matter" is still shorter). Don't much care how it goes in the end, I just think it's a valuable conversation to be having, so I'm participating in it.
And trying to keep people honest (especially when they aren't trying to be dishonest, because that demonstrates that they are confused) while I'm at it. Otherwise we'll all quickly get confused about what we're talking about.
And yes, the dark matter observations are better--in that they better confirm strange behavior--than the details about the big bang. Even if only because the description of the latter hinges upon the details of the former in the current discussion. But also because the research has been ongoing for quite some time and the conversation, and theory, is well developed without any reference to the big bang.
David T It's never been observed outside of a mathematical equation.
Actually, it's fascinating you should say that. I had the same opinion until just recently.
However, analysis of observational data from 2012 have demonstrated a columnar lensing effect from open space, implying that, at least in this case, there is a column of non luminescent matter strung between galaxies. Just as predicted!
I just read about it the other day!
Love the 80s style screen graphics and muzak. Rock on, national science money bundle.
Yup, they spend every cent they have to make it as good as they can, for us.
well, do you have another eplanation?
There is a pie chart made of cheesecake topped with strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, thimbleberries and whatnotberries, in an unknown corner of the Universe laying out the various probabilities of what constitutes the dark matter of the Universe.
Since you cannot disprove that what I just wrote, it must be true.
Hint?
Fun way to put it...though you forgot the cinnamon.
A pie like that has gotta have some spice...
+Cynthia Avishegnath What, exactly, is your point? Just humor?
``Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.``
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Cynthia Avishegnath no serious physicists claims dark matter is truth
Sean Carrol sounds like John Lovitz, but he is not very funny
Dirac speculated that cT=R is the radus (size) of the observable universe; R is the reciprocal of Hubble's constant. The divisor is the classical radius (size) of the electron, e2/mc2.
That would be an interesting test to do. If mass can be created by running a current through a wire and the entire system gains mass then that would be really cool.
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. Some others around here seem to have the balance all wrong. Stick with your ideas. You have support in the right places.
Does the battery loose a little mass as well?
@ Brad Grady... Strictly speaking, loss of "mass", as commonly understood, is virtually un-measureable (chemical reactions are *extremely* inefficient compared to other ways nature "releases" energy, and give up or take up so-called "binding energy")... but keep in mind that mass and energy are *equivalent* , not merely something "converted" one into another; so, of course, a closed circuit loses energy (and information) to entropy. In principle, though maybe not in practice, you could "weigh" that loss.
great video, i love this stuff
@Kaeralho How do you know that "no one knows"?
@jqs1943 What some consider to be a universal gravity that coexits as a component of the interstellar or intergallactic dynamics, is actually the X-gravity field factor of a gravitational force field that, in conjunction with the Theta waves of the universe makes up the fabric of the universe. The X-gravity field factor is a subfield of a gravitational force field that repels other worlds and form a part of the dynamics that establishes orbital corridors for those worlds, and avoid collisions.
i agree, that any law that just says a "force" exists, or that the universe "bends" without explaining it further, is not complete. That is like saying the wind blowing through your window is a "force" and not knowing or explaining that is composed of gases that move around in our atmosphere.
I still have a difficult time with the shape and speed the universe is expanding in all directions if flat. I've always pictured the universe shaped like the Hourglass Nebula (MyCn 18), or a figure 8. If the universe is expanding faster today than it was in the past, when the universe was just forming. How can we know this when we can only see what is happening in the past?
can expansion and getting bigger accomplish the same thing?
Einstein wrote his "Principle of Equivalence", which was complete bunkum. The gradient of a gravitational force can very easily be measured with a present day gravimeter (geophysical instrument) that can discern the difference in centimeters of height! Such a difference does not exist in a accelerated movement.
e.g., some kind of collisons are happening only along the extra dimension, in large scale, releasing energy into the regular 3D space?
"Spherical Standing Wave-Front Structure's Concentrically layered like onion's." And where the two IN+/-Out Wave-Front's meet creates the particle effect. As the high wave amplitude wave-center go's through one slit, its pilot wave go's through the other. Time is inverse: multiplying+/-dividing or frequency and wavelength. When we turn on the detector, we add energy multiplying time forming only bands on the screen. But when we turn off the detector, time keeps dividing an interference pattern.
I think of them more as "place holders". For example, that which has mass, has gravity. If we see the effects of gravity on visible matter but the visible matter cannot account for the gravitational effects observed, then invisible matter (matter we cannot currently detect using current tech/methods) would be the next best candidate.
Yeah, that's kinda what I've been leaning toward as well. We humans really overestimate the abilities of our sensory technology. "Dark energy" is a weak explanation for the alleged "acceleration in the expansion of the universe."
S.C is comfortable with not knowing, he is honest about it, which allows him greater understanding.
I admire the courage he has to maintain his integrity. Many in his field of study become become self-conscious about saying, "I don't know" as if they're not human beings.
The question is greater than the answer, more exciting, alluring, mysterious, inspiring, thrilling, captivating, fascinating, the never ending fuel for the journey of a lifetime and beyond.
He has cultivated and perfected such such a rich and engaging style - it really does not matter what he says. Just ask him.
@kenny8331 It would depend on the relative motion. Red-sift if you are moving apart, blue shift if you are are approaching. I don't have time to teach you basic physics SO just go and read the wikipedia article on Doppler shift and then the one on red shift of galaxies, please.
Thats interesting. I believe the redshift with distance is a consequence of the limited range of overlapping spherical In+/-out wave's, forming wave-center's within every observable spherical region of the Infinite Universe. Thus less wave-interaction, less energy exchange and Doppler causes a redshift.
It makes sense to me, that empty space is in a vacuum state. Empty space is infinate so it can accommodate the constant expansion of the universe and can also be creating room for constant ongoing creation in the universe. The Dark Energy gravitation being detected could well be the vacuum pulling in empty space. This could also explain the overall higher volume of gravitational force. Could this be possible?
Two slit experiment the high amplitude wave-center through one slit, pilot-wave through other. When we turn on the detector we add energy multiplying time form's only band's on the screen. When we turn off the detector time keep's dividing. Time is inverse multiplying+/-dividing, or frequency and wavelength. Input+/-output spatially extended locational rings series compressing+/-decompressing expanding sphere's which are dissipating gravitime same ratio as oscillating+/-mass is being multiplied.
the photon may just be a tool for QM equations. "By using a single photon, the team played on a strange property of light: quantum mechanical theory holds that while light is emitted as discrete particles called photons, it can also be thought of as a wave.
As a wave, the light passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the ‘shadow’ of the UR with it. The photon then entered a 10 cm long tube filled with cesium gas heated to 100° Celsius, where it was slowed and compressed."
We can and do examine it, Sally. But we can only do it through interactions it participates in with our instruments. Unfortunately, these do not include the electromagnetic interaction, so we can't see light reflected from it. But we see it very clearly by its gravitational interaction with other matter that we can see. When we look at the motion and gravitational lensing effects (due to extreme spacetime warping) near large matter clusters, the visible mass is far too small to account for it.
A thought: dark energy, dark matter... basic questions.
The universe expanding... basic questions.
Hmmm...
Are they related?
Do we look for answers to each, only to find they are related?
We should not look for answers when some answers may be laying right in front of us.
Janitor at prestigious university discovers the answer to the energy problem while vacuuming. Vacuum energy, and he is rewarded with a brand new vacuum cleaner !
how would you know that observers in other galaxies will also observe galaxies moving away from them?
If the extra dimension does exists in very large scale, then there could be exchange of kinetic energy between the oridinary 3-D space and the extra dimension, causing the acceleration?
I am not a physicisist but here's my best shot at answering your question: Using GR (general relativity), galaxies require extra mass, otherwise they wouldn't clump together like they do. Just how much mass? Well, about five times more than what is observed. Likewise, using GR, the universe's accellerating expansion, requires a cosmological constant (dark energy) which counters gravitational attraction and it can be assigned a specific magnitude based on GR. In short, it's in the math.
It's widely known we we can only test a small fragment of this spectrum, each react differently,we should try to unify those characteristics . ?
"All of the energy and all of the matter that has existed still exists. Matter does not
create energy of itself. It is the actions of matter that enable the manifestation of energy".
Thanks a lot sean. But I would like to correct one thing especially .in general relativity, gravity is not the curvature of spacetime. But it is the feasibility (how, when, where, and why) staffs interact (feasible interaction of staffs)due to the geometry of space-time. There is some specific physical and mathematical details that differentiates between the two claims. Though the former can be a specific case of the later which is phenomenologically general.
What is up with that disclaimer in the beginning ??
13:55
"Well, the way you explain it is something we call the 'Dark Energy'. It it is the simplest possible explanation."
I would love to hear the convoluted ones...
There's one about intrinsic instabilities in the dynamic space-time framework inducing a spatial entropy-like effect. From a certain perspective it's actually a bit simpler, as it doesn't require an anomalous spontaneous universal energy term.
Or you could believe in negative signs.
Or you could believe in the QM vacuum pressure and modify the calibration to fit the data.
Or some combination. Combinations are always more complicated.
Try reading the comments on virtually any YT video covering dark matter, dark energy or any even moderately cutting edge and/or controversial science topic. You'll find some astonishingly convoluted explanations, from angels, to the electric universe, to gigantic conspiracies on the part of millions of scientists from just about every nation and organisation to keep the sheeple in line and fund their yachts-and-hookers lifestyle. Turns out particle physicists really get all the action, who knew?
The space-time closer to the centre would be "faster" but appear the about same speed due to the -time bit of space-time doing its thing. More important is the overall effects of gravity in the cosmos. It is far more fluid and its -time effects are always overlooked. You could prove/disprove the disputed moon landing using the exact time delay in data link , but only if you allowed for the tiny effects of Earths rotational mass, the sun, and the moon's own pull etc.
I understand about 50%, but liked this talk a lot. What a wonderful time to be alive and curious.
@casinomagicportal
Are you saying that dark matter is clouds of neutrons?
a light photon is then an energy point on a wave of DE particles, which is why in the double slit experiment it behaves like both a particle and a wave.
Did you take into account that if mass decreases then what is left over that mass will be increased in velocity conservation of momentum if you can see that space time fluxuating has virtual energy that has mo mentum in Wich matter follows
Sir can you explain to me how its not expanding yet its getting bigger?PLease explain your view i am eager to know.
A very good lecture from Sean Carroll. Considering that the lecture is around 4 years old now, It has stood the test of time. In fact, the amount of 'real' matter estimate is now down to around 4% of the total! Idea: we know much of the matter in the very early universe was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. But thermodynamic law would seem to suggest that this energy would be conserved somehow. Is this the 'Dark Energy'?
I want to join the Toastmaster group that Sean belongs to. Oh, and also the Dark Energy Task Force, that sounds like fun. Amazing lecture.
The detector fires photons!. In order for electron energy transfer to appear to be a 'particle' at a point, electron waves must propagate non-linearly at the central region. This produces the coupling between two resonances that allows energy transfer. We see eXpanding ripples, observing this process and call it "charge."
Thus density of waves of an electron, inside a observable radius from the wave-center, must be equal or larger than density of background waves from observable universe R=c/H.
I think the proper question is: Did he fudge it on purpose? He got Relativity which shows there is no single way of viewing any given proposition, but somehow the concept didn't get extended adequately, and so all his fantastically complex equations are not kept symmetrical in time. Had he dealt fully with Time and the phase shifting of spacetime dimensions, it would've pointed out problems with the 2nd Lie of Thermodienomics, and then he would've been in dutch.
38:40 Is there not a problem in using GR to calculate the positions of the matter and matter+darkmatter content via gravitational lensing as a way of ruling out Bekenstein's theory? Surely Bekenstein's theory should have been used in the calculations and then been compared to itself?
*edit* I suppose that's what was done here: arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0790v2.pdf
I like that. Thanks for posting!
To quote Professor Carroll, "Everything is Waves".
its nice to see someone questioning relativity.
I'm not a scientist or a physics graduate, but I love this stuff. As an interested layman I'm only able to ask layman's questions... so here goes (please forgive my ignorance) If we were somehow able to travel instantly to a galaxy on the edge of the observable Universe, say 12-13 billion light years away, would we then see roughly 95% of other galaxies in the direction from which we just came? Or would we still see an even spread of galaxies whichever direction we pointed our instruments?
Good post. I like that 'Nature doesn't care what you or I find unbelievable' which echoes Richard Feynman's views on nature. A vacuum is merely an absence of air. The airless spaces are simply seething with activity - easily proved.
This idea has been put forward as a serious theory. The problem with a new universe 'bouncing back' though, is entropy. Entropy stays the same or increases. So any new universe would be much more short-lived and would reach the point where insufficient mass would be available for any new 'bounce'
Does the universe actually have a size and shape? How can it be quantified and proven? What does it mean for space to be bent, folded, wrinkled, stretched or otherwise mangled, and how does its structure change when subjected to these mangling forces? Can its edges be frayed or do they remain sharply defined and how are its edges defined, and is there an absolute boundary between its insides and whatever is outside of that boundary that it is expanding into? How can this all be proven true?
very good video
E=weight/gravity accelerationX c squared?
@azurequincy its fairly indesputable that everything is essentially composed of energy. especially if you take into account that matter is simply concentrated potential energy. yes it does make the supranatural more plausable. if matter or energy could simply dissapear it wouldnt make much sense to think our soul would continue after we die.
We know how large the observable universe is, and that's all we mean when we talk about the number of galaxies.
Also, when we talk about the 'correctness' of theories, we mean their numerical agreement with experimental predictions, which Einstein got spot on. After all, what is closer to truth than that? Certainly not some vague, mystical religious hypothesis.
@Virtueman1 If a scientist used a prism to break apart the spectrum of light reflection form blouse (not shirt, thank you) and wrote down the length in angstroms, that would give the only true and precise description of that color. Yet by looking at those numbers, not very many many could tell you what the color is.
videographer:The speaker's slides are more important than his persona. Pls display the slides more often and more prominently. The best solution is to collaborate with the speaker to accomodate an inset view of him talking in the corner of his slides.
Otherwise, thanks for an interesting talk - the sound quality was excellent!
The Big bang never happened because instead redshift with distance is a consequence of the limited range of overlapping spherical in+/-out wave's, forming wave-center's within every observable spherical region of the infinite universe.
Thus, less wave interaction, less energy exchange and Doppler causes a redshift.
Each wave-center formed by Huygen's combination in-wave's from other wave-center's spherically distributed around it, forming+/-breaking the imperfect symmetry you observe in Nature
Maybe dark matter is just dust bunnies made mostly of cat hair. That's what happens at my house.
In the pie chart, it includes dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. can someone please explain to me why normal energy doesn't fit into the chart, or where anti-matter fits into the whole explanation.
+heyits- alex Because "normal energy" equals "ordinary matter" times the speed of light squared... E=mc2
Volker Buescher that was stupid! Thank you:)
Actually, "where is all the anti-matter?" is a completely separate issue. Theory says it should have been created in equal quantities to "normal" matter at the Big Bang, but is conspicuously absent wherever we look. It is generally accepted that the theory is wrong on this point, but no-one has any good ideas what to do about it right now, so it's kind of getting ignored while people work on problems that don't cause massive existential crises for physics, and hope that someone else will stumble on an answer (preferably one that doesn't wreck their own work before the grants get approved) in the mean time :)
Sooo... it's slowing down or is it speeding up ???
Maybe 10^120 is the biggest discrepancy in physics, but in mathematics, Graham's number was invented to provide an estimate of an upper bound of the dimensionality of a hypercube whose diagonals are arbitrarily colored that necessarily contains a slice of 4 corners all in the same plane forming a square, that has all 4 sides and all 4 diagonals the same color. And all is known is that it's more than 12, but less than Graham's number. So math has physics totally beat in "worst approximation". The reality is unknown though, so it is not known exactly how bad an approximation Graham's number actually is though.
Man Sean is such a good speaker
Basically: if we are to solve the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy, we need to modify our theory/theories on gravity on a different scale? Is there a theory of gravity for microscopic scale, theory of gravity for mesoscopic scale, and theory of gravity for macroscopic scale? Gravity is the only property that links all things in our universe (or multiverse?)...so that must be the key to understanding the remaining mysteries of our universe/multiverse.
Now youtube is showing me videos from 2008 with Sean Carroll, a name I hadn't ever even heard of until like 2 months ago. And now he's everywhere, all through history or something.
Maybe he's a time traveler.
@@medexamtoolsdotcom No, the YT algorithm is just like that
"Yes, but they are spatially extended, and thats why you can see them! We only see the eXpansion from the high wave amplitude wave center, at the moment of emission and have been deluded into thinking matter was made of tiny little particles. The electromagnetic spectum is a continuous flow of energy. Therefore light is a wave, and it is time that is quatized. Spacetime is quantized into moments, only the frequency is relative at each moment of time." Life is compression+/-eXpansion is Death."
@HConstantine
"The descriptions of space, matter, and energy that matter can only be expressed in mathematics."
What "matters" depends on context. And no I don´t think the only descriptions of phenomena that can ever matter are always mathematical. What color is your shirt and how does it fit? Are going to answer me with a color-code and some calculus?
I find it difficult to understand why the universe is expanding because galaxies are moving further apart. It's a bit like saying the ocean is expanding because two ships move further away from each other. I think the universe both infintely massive & infinitely miniscule compared to us as a reference point.
@casinomagicportal
If space is space, how can it be distorted? Do you need another name for "space"?
The Sagnac experiment really proves that the speed of light is not invariant c. The relativistic derivation produced to show that the Sagnac effect is in fact relativistic is nothing but a crafty mathematical trick. Houdini style.
No one can deny the two so-called competing visions have brought us to our current technological civilization that is trying to avoid self-destruction. Yet no one can deny that the keepers are principally engaged in finding and proving how the universe started off. They have shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions to resolve the contradictions and conflicts they created in science. Science is in crisis over its meanings because the keepers are entangled with creation.
I'm still not clear on how you make dark matter disappear. Can you be more specific?
One of the lines of evidence is in the rotation of spiral galaxies. The visible galaxy acts as if it is part of a bigger disc. That is, the velocity of the outer edge stars are moving too fast in relation to the center to be accounted for by just the mass of the visible matter in that galaxy.
It is wrong to infer there is matter there that cannot be seen? Why?
25:30 I was the first one to come up with a gravity hypothesis that is better than Einstein's. It even predicts the gravitational effect called dark matter and the inflating effect called dark energy. They stem from the same mechanism that causes gravity. It is so simple that I cannot believe it was not thought of before.
How is it possible to assign a percentage value to the amount of energy in the universe if energy cannot be created or destroyed and is thus, perpetual?
Only non infinite things have % values, but if energy is infinite than the value would be 100% today, then 200% tomorrow, and 300% the day after that. Wouldn't it?
Right. Infinity has no percentage. Infinity covers an infinite amount of fractions. You can not be "close to infinity". No matter what number you might suggest. Infinity is useless in arithmetics. Nothing is Infinite in all dimensions, Infinity is a man-made concept. Like mathematics. You can safely ignore it.
Alfred Mayer Right. Because the timing on the stop lights is random; and your engine timing is random, but very lucky at keeping your can running for more than a second or so, and computers express entirely random, not at all number based information on your screen.
A implies B, does not result in not F without intermediate steps. Please express your ideas with an attempt at logical progression, or at least continuity. Arithmetic is the combining of non-infinite numbers, so by definition it has no use for infinities.
Another man made concept is writing. If you don't believe that man made concepts can be useful, you should stop using them. However, that does imply that people would be safer by simply ignoring you...
doodelay Despite the abject ignorance of the previous respondent (or perhaps the malicious attempt to mislead you), there are many ways to deduce ratios (percentages being one way to discuss them). A common one is densities. In this context, discussing energy densities let's you say the observed universe has 6% of its energy in standard particles, by density; or the observed universe has about 30% of its energy in matter of some form, by average density.
David T
But that's why I'm confused, if there's an infinite amount of energy than there wouldn't be 4% baryonic matter for long, there'd be an ever decreasing amount which gets smaller and smaller as time passes.
Perhaps it'd be as little as .000000004% eons from now. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's infinite, so these numbers can't be static.
doodelay I'm sure you're confused, but I'm still trying to figure out what is confusing you.
How would the fact of infinite total energy effect the baryonic matter content? There is also an infinite amount of baryonic matter, and an infinite amount of "non-baryonic" matter. They aren't exclusive, except in the conservation and Pauli senses.
Infinities do not determine something will be non-static. They often produce things that are macroscopically quite static. How do you change something that is infinite? Whatever you do is irrelevant. Locally the infinities fade away into the background (they're not locally infinite) and you have non static arrangements.
It isn't the case that there is a finite amount of matter and the energy is slowly destroying it. The percentages that you see discussed are the apparent equilibrium-like results that exist at this time in the universe's history. They may slowly change, but there isn't any strong evidence for it being fast.