@@turkicsayajin2274 having potential doesn't mean its not nothing. 0 has the potential to become anything except 0. Except here 0 has no -1 or 1 it just remains 0 until its not It just cant remain nothing forever. Because whether its nothing or something eventually something must change when referring to an infinite timescale.
Thats how infinity works. Its everything. Everything includes nothing. There cant be something if there isnt also nothing. So if nothing remains nothing forever it holds that eventually energy itself would arise from that "vacuum" of existence. Energy settles and condenses to form matter. We perceive this as an expansion of existence itself. Its just nothing propagating as something. Like a rock on a sheet smooth pond and the ripples that follow.
This is best explanation of Dark Energy I have ever seen. I like the way you look at opposing theories and compare the pros and cons. Looking forward to the next video. Keep up the good work!
@Donald Kasper I can prove that there is no need of dark dark matter to explaine why stars from galaxies dont flye away with a DNA photo that suggests there is not a single star that is not ENTANGLED as pair to another one, the entanglement is done from NORTH to SOUTH and all the pairs entangled cross same center poit of the system(WHITE SPHERE) which is the only way you can CREATE A PULLING FORCE not other wise, such pulling can be done because matter follows atomic weight and at the meadle of the gaseous(lighter matter) and the solids( heavier stuff) a disc is made that is stronger than north and south cause is made of both charges and sinse they cant cross or mix all the way but just a bit for the reson of atomic weight. - FOR THE SAME REASON THE QUINTESSENSE THING CANT BE, tell me how a lightter particle(from north) will become heavier than a south particle since they cant mix in other words in the north side a solid particle cant be is not its place. for more info take a look to my channel. In conclusion entanglement is the way all systems stay togather with out flying apart, its pure atraction from north to south in respective orbits, yes¡? there are 4 orbits seen in the DNA picture and each represent a color.
@Donald Kasper well my work is there you are welcome to take a look as well to comment if you like, there over a thousand of ease equetions that back up what i have sayed, actually part of the numbers are in the second last video of Avin Ash, most of them belong to a Mayan Calender that as well I decoded it and the numbers of the DNA are found as well in the calender some way or many others.
I wish my teacher’s back in my school days were this concise and straight forward,I probably would’ve been more inspired in my education,and became somebody.
Damn ! This resonated with me haha ... I hated physics and most studies because my teachers made them so boring when I was a kid . They’re the real criminals 😤😂
Arvin, "What is Dark Energy made of?" is another fascinating and very interesting video. You're taking the viewer further into the mysteries of the Universe. Will we ever find the Answers? Well done and well explained.
Captain Miller, the answers have been found. Max Planck knew, all those years ago (as evidenced by his 1944 speech in Florence, Italy). All is Thought in the Great Mind that many call "God." As Planck said: "This Mind is the matrix of all matter." ALL IS THOUGHT. And that's as close to absolute Truth that either science or religion is going to get, so long as we are experiencing LIMITATION. Want to know more? I've got it. But I don't receive TH-cam comments notifications, so investigate me and you can contact me through my websites, if you are one of the tiny minority of people (at this point in time) who truly seeks Truth, with a capital "T." My regards!
Indeed, this video really illustrates the mystery that the universe is. The deeper you dive in, the more mysterious it becomes. If you smoke DMT, you dive further into the mystery than you could ever imagine, in fact you become the mystery. Not trying to advertise it, but it gives a perspective and experience on a whole new, indescribable level.
Do you really want to know what is causing space throughout the universe to expand exponentially with distance? Because no one else wants to listen to what I have to say. I not only know what dark energy is, what is causing it but I came to the conclusion that the action causing space to expand is responsible for both gravity and dark matter too. So simple I can't believe Einstein didn't figure it out back in the early 1900's. Maybe because if he had acknowledged this action the secrets of the universe would have been widely understood and there would have been little reason to research astrophysics any further? An easy fix to Einstein's field equation. After I fixed his equation it took general relativity in a different direction. Instead of the postulate nothing can escape the gravity of a black hole, not even light it turns out that nothing can fall into a black hole, not even light. Thus in 2004 I made the prediction that eventually astrophysicists would discover black holes to be spewing massive amounts of energy. When the energy slows to a rest relative to the black hole it converts into elementary particles, heat and electricity (electrically charged hot gas). The gas is NOT attracted to other mass until it loses it's heat and charge. Thus the energy and gas that surrounds a black hole will be found to be moving away from the black hole in every direction. The stream of hot energy and gas flowing away from a black hole will not allow matter to get close to a black hole. The black holes do not have event horizons. They do not have photon spheres. They do not have accretion disks! All these predictions and more, like the information paradox is wrong. I'm sure you'll want to talk or meet me soon after direct observations of Sgr A* show that I'm right.
Dark energy = repulsive gravity or hyperbolic geometry. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter Negative curvature is dual to positive curvature (Gauss, Riemann) Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- The Hegelian dialectic! Perpendicularity in hyperbolic geometry is measured in terms of duality.
Not a physicist, not a mathematician, not a scientist, but hooked on Arvin Ask. I'm hanging on by a thread and will need to re-watch most of his videos because they are fascinating.
Great video as usual! On a side note, I've always had trouble accepting that the universe was flat. Nothing in space seems to be flat. Plus, this seems eerily similar to how people thought the earth was flat until they were able to explore it and then ultimately calculate that it was a sphere. I think that we will have one of these revolutionary moments with regards to space, and hopefully we will have it in my lifetime. I realize that the data we have so far suggests a flat space-time, and I have nothing that can show otherwise...this is all based on my opinion (which is ignorant, I know, but everyone is entitled to one).
You have to remember that "flat" in terms of the universe means flat in 3D, not flat like a pancake. The means there is no overall curvature to 3D space - parallel lines will stay parallel forever.
@@ArvinAsh yes of course. It's very hard for me to imagine our universe wrapped around a 3-sphere (or is the universe the 3-sphere?), so I don't know what the implications would be. I imagine that all parallel lines would eventually converge, and we would be able to look out in any direction and eventually see ourselves (assuming we lived long enough for light to circumnavigate the 3-sphere).
You might say I am crazy after reading what is next but take a look to it, its a DNA picture that added numbers to it, found 6 forms to add sequences of numbers and all show entanglement as pairs in respective orbit(same), the figure is made by 7 circles, six of them encircle one at the center that is white that is the inside hexagonal, the 7 circles form 4 hexagonals that each belong a color so make 4 orbits and more dont have time to write it all but see some other programs of Arvin dont remember which but there are most of the numbers that move as around, its easier if you just take a look to my channel, all the photos are about the same in all videos, I think that this numbers might be of so much help to stop the CORONA VIRUS, all of the time in the very little time that i have just aplayed my 2 works to astronomy and they match so well, the thing is that dont know of DNA at all but believe the numbers say sentences and ways to dicode the language of all DNA maybe only the numbers of the virus are the ones that we have to see to just know how it does it and as well there is the periodic table in anlist 5 forms of making groups, CANT explane all not even in the videos is the time of litlle times of over 14 years that is out there with diferent people but they are kind of blind to see them anlist the ones I gave all my 3 books in coppy right, it is worth it to look at them if you find some numbers to share with as they are welcome in here or where ever you whant, the bottles are out in the sea hope you will open yours.
You're the only channel that I pay attention to every word you say and absorb so much. Even though I don't understand roughly 25 percent, it's still a worth the watch. Keep up the hard questions and theories.
I recommend listening to Sabine Hossenfelder's interview Dr. Sarkar's as he addressed why the other lines of evidence don't have as strong of a weight as it seems at first glance and it was quite enlightening changing my perspective on the issue considerably. In particular he points out that in processing data for the large scale structure of the universe scientists have assumed large scale isotropy of the universe which is a valid critique regardless of whether or not he turns out to have been right or not as while valid for fitting a model it is not valid for finding a model. In terms of statistics this is assuming and underlaying distribution and fitting for what parameters the observations best fit despite not having a statistically significant sample size. Assumptions are important to keep into consideration as this assumption has been applied across cosmological results despite existing evidence that our universe is not isotropic from the CMB model and more recent efforts to map out the large scale structure of the universe via surveys. In principal the problem with this assumption is that the distances corresponding to a given redshift are based on the assumption the large scale distribution of matter is isotropic i.e. assuming isotropic galaxy distribution beyond 100 Mpc(mega parsecs). However he goes to explain how this assumption does not match the data which shows a non local anisotropy corresponding to the CMB dipole within the radio with mean motion four times larger than the CMB dipole additionally using tomography they found the same dipole in the raw supernovae observations except with higher uncertianty due to the far smaller sample size but most importantly significant anisotropy presisted out to the Shapley Supercluster around 200 Mpc which is enough to invalidate the model assumption of isotropy beyond 100 Mpc. Since then other astronomers such as the Nearby Supernovae factory have determined this anisotropy extends well beyond that distance. And the most recent result of survey using 11,000 high redshift galaxies extends this observed peculiar velocity flow even further with tighter error bars Since the model assumed to compensate for the lack of data assumed no peculiar velocities and 3 quarters of the galaxies in the type 1a supernovae catalog have been found to have peculiar velocities in a bulk flow it is not valid and there is not a large enough sample size to claim high significance you can't actually rule out any models or claim particular values with any degree of confidence as there is still a sizable chance that the observations are noise well below 3 sigma. He also says the covaliance matrices they used to correct the initial supernovae data were not positive definite and thus their corrections were unphysical . Dr. Sarkar does not make any claim that dark energy does or doesn't exist his argument is that we don't have enough observational data to make a high confidence observation for cosmological observations i.e. the sample sizes are too small for you to be able to remove false positives right now we can only test fits for independent models but that doesn't tell you the real distribution as any models can achieve a significant fit with the right parameters. This is the crux of hist argument there just is not enough data to actually assess if a given model actually fits the data well or not because the sample size is far too small in order to actually claim 3 or higher sigma. Attempting to combine data sets or using empirical correlations allow you to artificially boost the apparent sigma value however this introduces errors from all the biases and assumptions needed to compare them which renders it just as unreliable. The Square Kilometer Array will hopefully give a large enough sample size for cosmological if it actually comes to fruition without that there isn't enough data to actually make a confident claim about effects at the cosmological scale which applies to the Supernovae data, Baryon Acoustics observations, measurements of the curvature of the universe etc all need far more data than we currently have in order to actually build a large enough sample size to apply statistical methods with enough accuracy to actually select for models as opposed to fitting models. It all comes down to that independent distance measurements are needed beyond redshift to interpret redshift properly and this is hard to do but no amount of fancy statistical methods can allow you to get around the simple fact that there is not enough data to actually rule out cosmological models. Basically he is calling out the cosmological community for not properly doing statistics with sufficient mathematical rigor to make the claims they are making, largely because the effects they are looking for are small so you need a sample size of millions to billions to actually get a good enough distribution to rule out any model distributions. The observations tell us that the assumption of isotropy is invalid and thus the cosmological community needs to reanalyze their data that is his argument. Whether dark energy exists or not is external to the issue Dr. Sarkar raises. "We are trying to make a clear distinction between what is measured and the interpretation". As such the attacks on his work seem perplexing to me as they are mathematically and logically sound arguments. th-cam.com/video/B1mwYxkhMe8/w-d-xo.html
Galaxies are rotating much much too fast based on the matter we can see in them. They should be flying apart. Some kind of invisible energy must be holding them together OR the theory of general relativity changes as we start measuring things which are very far away and very large.
Back with another banger Arvin, your videos are ones that I will have to keep revisiting as my science knowledge slowly increases. I'm sure you could be a prominent figure in popular science teaching like ND Tyson etc... Have you thought about doing Q&A videos or vlogs or even trying to get on a popular podcast?
@@ArvinAsh The reason I say it is because once the audience feels like they know the person making the video they will engage more.. It's sort of like sports personalities marketing themselves on the internet. A few behind the scenes videos and some answering of submitted questions and before you know it, someone like me (who has very little interest in sport) is now watching these sports stars play their game all because it feels like i'm watching a friend... Science people tend to market themselves terribly and this could be the reason for little engagement from the masses. You on the other hand are a very effective communicator and would benefit greatly on marketing yourself better to your audience. The great thing about a vlog is that it has low production value but can be just as entertaining, think of you just out in your backyard sharing a thought experiment like a Feynman esc type thing.. I know intelligent people are usually introverted and have no interest in appealing to the masses but if you could overcome that hurdle, you'd be doing humanity a great service.
@@videoswithsubscribers-xk5hb Those are great thoughts! Maybe if the channel gets a larger following, a popular podcaster might want me. Hadn't thought about vlogs. I don't really know what they even are...lol. I thought my videos are like vlogs.
Thank you for another informative and extremely well-explained video; I always appreciate your videos and look forward to them - Stay healthy and safe!
Wonderful video once again. We are made of the highly special 4% of the energy of the universe. Depends on the perspective if we look at it as minuscule or special.
Absolutely fascinating. Making me consider just how insignificant we are in the universe is a great tonic to the current human situation we're all living through. Thank you!
If only we could watch you tube in ten million years all these questions will be answered. Yes, science happens very, very slowly, especially on a budget. We always go to 'it could have happened this way' to 'we know it happened this way, because'.
I had insomnia last night and kind of figured this out on my own, that as space expands there is more space, so more vacuum energy or quantum fluctuations or whatever you want to call it. All of a sudden, the acceleration of the expansion makes sense to me. Over truly huge distances, there is enough energy in the empty space to cause it.
I took shrooms one time and seen like this dark waves lines all connected like the net they show. I would put both my hands together in a O and seen it get compacted in the inner O of my hand. And when I would break the O seen it flow right back to connect with the rest
Arvin, I'm a person with only average intelligence on these subjects, and there is a question on my mind that maybe you can help me with. They say that the universe is flat in 4D spacetime, yet space is expanding. To me this sounds like a contradiction. For example, imagine two spaceships lined up next to each other at a start line and setting out on a journey towards a finish line 90 billion lightyears away. The two space ships begin on a course parallel to each other and have the same velocity. They make no course corrections along their journey. Wouldn't the distance between the two spaceships gradually increase along their journey as 4D spacetime expands? And wouldn't their parallel courses curve away from each other proportionately to the time and distance travelled? To me this seems to indicate that 4D spacetime is saddle shaped. What am I misunderstanding?
@dontknow Ok. So imagine the two spaceships being separated from each other at the start line by a large distance where the force of gravity is less than the rate of spacetime expansion.
First I have news for you, only highly intelligent people think they have average intelligence. Average intelligence people routinely think they are smarter than average. Regarding your question, that is an excellent thought experiment. Let me see if I understand correctly: Let's say the distance between the two ships is 1000 feet. Space within this 1000 feet is expanding at a very small but constant rate. But if the space between the two ships remains constant, the constant rate of expansion between the ships will be the same throughout their trajectory. In other words, the 1000 feet from where they started in space will have expanded the same amount as the 1000 feet at the end of their journey, so the trajectory would have remained parallel throughout.
@@ArvinAsh Let's say they are separated by more than 1000 feet so that the force of gravity doesn't interfere with the thought experiment. Let's say they are separated by a light year. Their finish line is 90 billion light years away and they are travelling at sub light speed. At the end of their journey wouldn't they be separated by more than 1LY? Wouldn't they in fact be separated by several LYs by that point? Perhaps even millions or billions of LYs? And wouldnt the rate of expansion between them increase along the journey to a point somewhere along the way where they would be moving away from each other faster than C? And wouldn't their vectors eventually not be parallel anymore? Wouldn't they be curved away from each other, and in fact begin curving away from each other the moment they began the journey? They would seem straight to each individual spaceship but when tracked relative to each other by an independent outside observer they would be curved away from each other over time and distance, no? It seems to me that the universe is saddle shaped, not flat. But all the experts in the field say that it's flat, so I must be misunderstanding something.
@@CallsignJoNay First of all I have to agree with Arvin's first point, and that certainly means something coming from a smart guy like myself! Now to my thoughts on the experiment: *1. Does the distance between the spaceships increase?* Yes, space between they will expand. And if for each newly created volume of space there is also an expansion (which I'd surely expect) it does speed up too. If it expanded fast enough and/or their distance is large enough their distance might even increase faster than c and thus the starships not be causally connected anymore (meaning they can't possible interact or communicate in any way). *2. If their distance increases, won't their movement vectors diverge?* Nope. Both of the ships is following a straight trajectory. The increase in their distance does not come from the ships moving apart (which would of course alter their movement vectors) but from the space between them just getting bigger. Neither ship experiences an acceleration/rotation due to the expansion of space. Therefore parallel vectors are conserved even if distance is not. *3. What does that say about the geometry of spacetime?* I have no clue. I honestly don't see in what way the expansion of spacetime would effect it's geometry. (flat, saddle-shaped or other) Do my points make sense or did I mess up somewhere? I'm not a physicist after all xD
This channel along with Physics Girl and Vertusin (spelled that wrong) are really good at explaining things. Worth the time to watch Sixty symbols as well
Most stuff in the universe seems to have a fractal involved, in a way that you can scale the concept up or down magnitudes and preserve the behaviour. Could some of the fundamental forces of nature be diferent magnitudes of a fractal? and dark energy be diferenct forces that manifests in super large scales magnitude?
felix cuevas I think what he means is that perhaps gravity might behave differently on extreme scales, maybe if you get enough space between 2 points gravity inverts and repels instead of attracts, but then there’s dark matter which kinda doesn’t make any sense at all by that logic. Perhaps something very special happens on a galactic scale as in enough diverging realities gravities overlap around galaxies, but those realities are too diluted to notice on the scale of the solar system. I think we probably need a lot more data, and an order of magnitude more sensitive gravitational wave observatories or some other crazy experiments before we find out.
It's an area of space where the mass of an area is experiencing a faster passage of time so it's wave moves faster through the system RELATIVE to us. It is both real from our perspective but non-existent to those within their respective areas of space. That's my thinking anyhow.
The effect is weak enough that gravity can overcome it locally but at the scale of the universe dark energy dominates because it is constant throughout space.
This something I've wanted to ask a theoretical physist for a very long time. Everybody talks about dark energy pushing out, but what if it's actually opposite, where the universe, spacetime, which isn't really a perfect vacuum, is simply being pulled from the outside by a more perfect vacuum? What if the big bang took place in a perfect vacuum of limitless space that was there ready to pull it apart? Wouldn't that help resolve why the universe is homogenous in every direction? It might also help explain why objects further away are moving faster than objects closer in to us? With the big suck, so to speak, pulling from the outside of the physical universe from every possible point. Oh...One more thing, make sure you give me credit if this turns out to be a thing, which I seriously doubt, but I really needed to ask this question. Cheers! And, thank you for reading. Mya
Great question! There are two ideas on this. The one I talked about in the video is that as more dark energy is added, it is counterbalanced by an equal amount of gravitational potential. But some scientist say that conservation of energy need not be preserved in general relativity. I prefer the former idea.
Arvin I had a few doubts from the video. Why would the energy density of dark energy in the quintessence field decrease if the dark energy to matter ratio deceased from 1 billion to 2.3. The decrease in the ratio means that dark energy should increase. And what is the 3 sigma and 2 sigma you talked about. What does the sigma stand for. I didn't get that part. Otherwise I understood everything really well. Great video as always👌👌
Great questions! On the 1 billion to 1 ration, it was the matter:dark energy density, where as the current 2.3 is dark energy:matter density. The point is that the discrepancy between the two was much larger in the past. The 3 sigma vs 2 sigma has to do with statistical analysis of test results. It shows how much variability there is in test results. . I should have explained this better, but in statistics, there is something called correlation of data. After conducting tests, the researchers take all their data and determine how well they show a pattern. A highly correlated pattern shows very high sigma levels, but if the data is highly variable, it shows lower sigma or more variability. If there is a lot of variability, then this could mean that the results may be random and not due to any pattern.
@@quasimobius It wouldn’t be a TH-cam science video without the obligatory community college dropouts who think they’re more knowledgeable than career Ph.D scientists.
Hey Arvin - another great video. Please can you help with something I've been really curious to know: In these kind of situations, which is more reliable or 'top trumps' - logical reasoning or scientific theory? Are theories guided more by logic or maths (where direct observation is not possible)?
Interesting question. If there is not direct observation possible, then I think currently, any theory with a mathematical basis is going to be more credible. The problem with logic is that at the fundamental level, science is not always logical, since the universe has no obligation to be logical to us.
The toughest matter on Earth. Thanks for explaining what remain understandable of it. Personally, I believe our theoretical approach to the Universe is, not wrong but incomplete. Our science, my theory goes, contains one single erroneous preconception, which is causing a chain of wrong interpretations of the reality that sorrounds us. The level of this wrong preconception stands where the concept of centrality stood before Copernicus, or where the concept of simultaneity stood before Einstein. My idea is that the concept of separability stands in the way of understanding the true nature of the universe. Separability allows us to have "things" which perform "actions", equivalent to the names and verbs in our experience. Separability allows us to use the concept of numbers, fundamental to our science (and that may be the problem). Universe may well be seen as an iteration of different actions, where objects and particles are perceivable, but are not really true, being a conseguence of the iterations mentioned above.
Does the Lorentz transformation equation make any suggestion as to what sort of particle might possess negative energy? Specifically, if you ignore the seeming barrier of the infinity at c and just go ahead and calculate the transformation for v>c, what would be the mass and energy of any particle in that realm? Would it be possible for particles to pass into our observable sphere from beyond the boundary of the observable universe where the recession rate equals the speed of light?
Excellent video. I like the fact that you give credit even to scientists with different view points. I like the fact that you keep an open mind. I really like your videos.
@@ArvinAsh you do that very well. I sent your links to several people I know that like physics but are not profesional scientists. They can get the big picture.
Sorry to hear that. I put a lot of information in this one, so I highly recommend multiple viewings. Like good wine, you will pick up new tastes with every sip.
I have always hard times to imagine that the universe is expanding because I can't imagine that space has boundaries. This leads to the question in what the universe is expanding.
Bonjour Arvin. J' habite à Toulouse et je trouve que tes vidéos sont toujours aussi didactiques’ les meilleures que je connaisse sur YT. Sais-tu ou va l'énergie d'un ressort comprimé que je jette dans de l'acide fluorique. Do-you understand me’ arvin? and continue your vidéos . Tanks
L'énergie potentielle du sping est convertie en énergie thermique que vous pouvez détecter comme une augmentation de température dans le liquide. La température augmente même sans compression, mais la température augmente légèrement plus avec un ressort comprimé. En fin de compte, une augmentation de la température est une augmentation de l'énergie cinétique des molécules du liquide.
It's only your videos that i have to watch at least thrice... First I'm happy to know... oh..!there is a new video from arvin ash... Afterwards I'm holding my head with both of my hands... watching the video again and again... thinking oh i got to grasp it.. Anyhow... great work... thank you very much sir.
@@asifbajwa826Iam not smart as you think, I understood the video very well cause all the videos that are out there in you tube are made with out the math that is a thing that always gave me hard time as well grammer, but if you are a beginer in this kind of programs that is why maybe you didnt get it at the first time. some times is hard to me to get ideas that are so simple for others, as well I like to wonder in the forms of things as well always I wonder of the cosmos and love each video that speak of the cosmos spetially if there are some graphics in the video. - dont think that you are dumb person ; just tried to make a jocke as i like to do when i write in the coment section, some times the comments make me laugh a lot, thanx for writing.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace it's extreme and complex science... that is hard to comprehend ... you know there are lots of theories... and theories are not facts but they are fascinating... The real hard thing is to extract the true possible real knowledge out of all those theoretical ideas. So you have to accept or dismiss a theory to believe in it.. Arvin ash gives his own possible conclusions but we have to conclude the end result on our own. Am I right..?
@@asifbajwa826 See you are not domb at all, yes you are right, you have to conclude the end result in your own based on what you know or believe for some reason. - I am almost totally against physics in the way they see the cosmos, they see a flat space while mine is hexagonal coned shaped, they dont see it in colors and I see colors in the cosmos as well in the air, they see an ever expanding universe whene I see that it only breathes, they say all came to be the way it is by a BIG BANG but I think we only need bangs of all sizes but to get energy from it, i think light cant be constant at all but they do, i see that in the universe must be a north and south but not for them, they think that the neutral part does not interact with the positive and the negative whene i think it must to interact with both so to keep the systems stable and much more, I do have my channel if you like to take a look to my videos you are welcome. thanx for your words.
There is another possibility to consider. Maybe everything is made of just one entity which exists in two forms, dynamic energy (what everything is made from) and static energy ( a form of energy through which dynamic energy can travel at the maximum speed of light). Static energy in this thought model is the dark energy and has the properties of the Higgs field in a slightly different way than observed so far. In this concept dynamic energy in the absence of static energy can travel at infinite speed, but through a static energy field it reacts with static energy to which stiffens as a function of the speed of light and the quantity of energy. So very small amounts of energy can pass at the speed of light but larger quantities are impeded or deflected. Large energy packets exist in the static energy field as particles where the energy which wants to travel at above the speed of light can do so being deflected off the stiffened static energy shell boundary. The essential property of the static energy field is that the field pressure between particles is slightly less than the pressure from the broad static energy field, and this pressure difference is what we experience as gravity. But the same mechanism also pushes large masses of particles apart, creating the effect of cosmic expansion. Electro magnetism is created by energy loops which emerge from and return to a particle slowing and bunching to create an electron or merging with another particle loop to form a magnetic field line where the greater the number of merged particle loops the greater the field line size. The more loops the greater the field strength. From an entropy perspective this concept has a greater probability of explaining string theory than does the standard model. IMHO.
Regarding the cosmological constant problem, I studied over five research papers and books. All frequencies of the harmonic oscillator are summed up. But the vacuum energy is only for 1/2 hw. Anything above produces a real particle, not part of the vacuum. Symmetry breaking is needed to produce mass. Since the huge mass is nowhere to be found, symmetry is not broken, which means the huge potential is still there. It can't be. That potential started the inflation period. After that, matter was produced and the potential must have gone down (Higgs field). Finally, many papers consider energy levels all the way to the Planck mass. This might have been the case at the start of inflation, which is no more. The only other times that mass is conceivably huge is in a huge gravitational field, a black hole. No space expansion there. Can you clarify all this?
It depends on which version you use. If you use position and momentum on the left side then it would be 4pi. I used energy and time. In this case, the right side is actually the reduced Planck's constant, so it's over two pi.
@@ArvinAsh I wonder. There should be no difference between the momentum-position (p-x) uncertainty and the energy-time (E-t) one because circular frequency ω=2π/T=2πE/h (where T is the period) is just the temporal counterpart of the spatial "wave number" (rather wave density) k=2π/λ=2πp/h where λ is the wave length.
I read many papers about the cosmological constant problem. Even with renormalization, the sums include very high masses, since the potentials of the quantum harmonic oscillators allow that. Mathematically, yes, but physically, the potential can't be high everywhere in the universe. It was extremely high during inflation but came way down later. It's not just about dark energy because during the atomic era, energy density was already very low, though, about 10^5 higher than the dark energy era. I don't see a problem with the 'cosmological constant problem'.
I never knew there was the same hostility towards dark energy as there was towards the big bang and the moon landing by certain people until visiting the comment section of this video. Guess you learn something new everyday.
If you keep reading the comments on my other videos, you will also find that there is apparently a big iconoclastic population of people that reject most anything that science can not completely answer, relegating it to various forms of conspiracies and malicious intent by mainstream scientists. If only we were that well organized.
Well you should of definitely have left out the moon landing in order to criticize people who don't go along with what is being said in this video. If you actually believe they landed on the moon, could you please explain what the purpose of doing so was ? And depending on your response, another question might be àsked as to why have they not gone back there since
@@richardnelson4112 To clarify, I wasn't necessarily implying that people who don't believe in the moon landing are stupid or have no basis for their opinion, I was simply drawing a comparison between how both groups seem to have this same hostility towards the idea, be it the moon landing or dark energy, and express their discontent in a very hostile way. And I would prefer not to get into arguments with strangers over the internet, if possible. I learned years ago that, win or lose, it doesn't really matter.
@@BillyBob-cx5vi But there's a very fundamental difference between these two (Moon landing and everything "dark"). That is, said "everything dark" are purely mathematical constructs with no actual proof beyond "observations don't agree with the previously accepted theory". In about every other field of science, a theory that is wrong by such a huge margin would've been thrown out the window after double-checking the results.
Einstein told us. Dark energy is space itself expanding. This is also why it can expand faster then the speed of light. Also, and this is just an assumption, black holes sucking in stuff is what’s fueling the dark energy.
idk dark matter seems wayyy to vast to be caused by something thats usually only 5-10 M☉ the milky way center black hole is 36 million M☉ the dark energy in the Milkey is roughly about 100 billion M☉ and whats strange is its actually way less then people thought before. there is a theory though that the dark matter itself is caused by primordial black holes, aka microscopic black holes. i think there caused by neutrino like particles because they are extremely abundant.
Raoul Duke perhaps. I’m pretty stupid so a lot of this is just me taking information I’ve read and making sense of it. I think dark matter is the container itself. Whatever the “area or space” is that ALL the universes is held in. So: Black holes collect matter and shred it into energy. That energy is used to add more “universe”. Thus adding more dark matter. As an interesting side note. And this is regarding Einstein. Einstein abandon his cosmological constant because he gave into the idea of the dynamic universe. But what if Einstein was NEVER wrong? What if the universe is dynamic but the “container” that holds all the universe is static, like he believed?? That would mean Eisteins original calculations regarding dark energy is more accurate then anything modern scientists have come up with.
Raoul Duke perhaps. But if you could calculate the total amount every black hole has ever “sucked in”..... something that’s impossible because we can only measure the observable Universe. So we would need a way to account for the unobservable Universe and all the black holes that have ever sucked in material As for the vastness.... remember the entire Universe used to be a single point smaller then an atom.
May i suggest you read the manus . It can at least for me bring a better understanding of the topic. But I certainly hope the James Webb telescope can provide us with measurements so we can rule out on or another of these theories or hypothesis. But as usual a very exciting show about this mystery
We remember Einstein implemented the Cosmological Constant to create a static Universe. I his equation the Cosmological Constant ( DarkEnergy) is a result of an Energy constant caused by the first law of Thermodynamics- Energy is neither destroyed nor created, it just changes form.
Space definitely is full of stuff. The concept of ether was a little differnet though. It was really created to be a kind of stationary reference frame that other things could be measured against. And there was no theoretical basis for it. The "stuff" of the universe today is very well defined, however, and has theoretical bases to support it.
The universe is probably infinite or at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Could there be areas beyond that that are collapsing? Maybe the local area we happen to be is an area that is expanding, but somewhere else you may run into where the universe is contracting. This could be happening in many places that are expanding and others that are contracting. The areas expanding are like ripples in a lake. So the dark energy is just coming from the areas of the universe contracting pulling on the fabric of space. At some point they may reverse and start expanding in a big explosion, sending a long of contracting space back at us, and our area will become the area contracting and stretching the universe around us.
@H D Sounds good, black holes are said to be the opposite of the big bang or inside them possible big bangs. The math of the two seem to line up that way. But I dont think of the black holes as the areas pulling the universe to expand and cause the appearance of dark energy. I think thats just concentrated matter causing infinite mass at a point and curving the space time infinitely. For instance, the sun with its same mass happened to be a black hole, the planets would continue orbiting without effect. It doesn't seem to be pulling the fabric of space and causing more of it, its just curving it. Really just throwing this idea out there. I think dark energy is just how space behaves. If you have a square foot of space it will turn into 2 square feet after a moment, and those two new square feet will then also expand. Its just what space does.
@H D Black holes cant exist with only one charge, some say that white holes are the pairs of black holles but if so the way they draw them is not correct because where to oposite charges meet there is always a disc created by both and they no even speak of the disc that acts as neutral and has or is made by both charges.
What makes space? Is it replicating or stretching? If stretching, would that mean that our universe could tear/rip apart? What would it mean to us for our universe to tear or rip apart? In string theory I think Inverse waves among the strings would make matter and or power disappear and/or weaken and Would that be the same as a black hole? On the other hand increasing the resonance of said wave or vibration would make matter and/or energy appear and/or get stronger. Would that be a white hole?
@@libertequeliberteque3521 that is beeing for decades, stars dont have to behave like planets, planets are solid masses, stars are pure PLASMA, planets are positive charge and stars are negative so dont spect them to act the same other wise wouldnt be systems.
Are you sure about negative energy? IIRC impulse-energy tensor contains not only energy component important for normal gravity (as opposed to frame dragging effects), but also pressure. Dark energy has positive energy, but also experiences such a huge negative pressure that it produces antigravity stronger than energy's gravity. Expanding universe makes dark energy experience even higher negative pressure, so antigravity increases in time. This way DE can be matter-like stuff with dynamic density, but not decreasing as time goes by
Is there a video going more in depth about the vacuum and particles coming into existence, what he talks about at 5:10? that graphic is blowing my mind
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
It's made out of Math... and the tears of physicists.
Its made of nothing. Nothing has exactly the opposite potential of something.
realitynowassigned so it’s not nothing ! how ?
@@turkicsayajin2274 by virtue of being nothing forever.
@@turkicsayajin2274 having potential doesn't mean its not nothing. 0 has the potential to become anything except 0. Except here 0 has no -1 or 1 it just remains 0 until its not
It just cant remain nothing forever. Because whether its nothing or something eventually something must change when referring to an infinite timescale.
Thats how infinity works. Its everything. Everything includes nothing. There cant be something if there isnt also nothing. So if nothing remains nothing forever it holds that eventually energy itself would arise from that "vacuum" of existence. Energy settles and condenses to form matter.
We perceive this as an expansion of existence itself. Its just nothing propagating as something. Like a rock on a sheet smooth pond and the ripples that follow.
This is best explanation of Dark Energy I have ever seen. I like the way you look at opposing theories and compare the pros and cons. Looking forward to the next video. Keep up the good work!
Sinse all is not to clear is good too see the different points of view not just the standard more acepted thing.
@Donald Kasper I can prove that there is no need of dark dark matter to explaine why stars from galaxies dont flye away with a DNA photo that suggests there is not a single star that is not ENTANGLED as pair to another one, the entanglement is done from NORTH to SOUTH and all the pairs entangled cross same center poit of the system(WHITE SPHERE) which is the only way you can CREATE A PULLING FORCE not other wise, such pulling can be done because matter follows atomic weight and at the meadle of the gaseous(lighter matter) and the solids( heavier stuff) a disc is made that is stronger than north and south cause is made of both charges and sinse they cant cross or mix all the way but just a bit for the reson of atomic weight. - FOR THE SAME REASON THE QUINTESSENSE THING CANT BE, tell me how a lightter particle(from north) will become heavier than a south particle since they cant mix in other words in the north side a solid particle cant be is not its place. for more info take a look to my channel.
In conclusion entanglement is the way all systems stay togather with out flying apart, its pure atraction from north to south in respective orbits, yes¡? there are 4 orbits seen in the DNA picture and each represent a color.
@Donald Kasper well my work is there you are welcome to take a look as well to comment if you like, there over a thousand of ease equetions that back up what i have sayed, actually part of the numbers are in the second last video of Avin Ash, most of them belong to a Mayan Calender that as well I decoded it and the numbers of the DNA are found as well in the calender some way or many others.
Answer to what, why, and how: God says universe obeys these particular laws and so it ever thus.
Lol p
As a layman and cosmology enthusiast, to me this is one of your most profound videos, explaining many views, touching upon many topics in question.
Mr. Ash, you are a great communicator. Thanks for making these wonderfully informative videos. I learn something new every time I watch them.
Great! Thanks for watching my friend.
Arvin: 30% is basically the same as 70%
*Federal Taxes has entered the chat*
Federal Taxes: say no more!
I could actually hear all that info fly over my head.
Sir, if you had been my science teacher I'd have chosen a different profession. Once again, excellent video. 👍🏻
I wish my teacher’s back in my school days were this concise and straight forward,I probably would’ve been more inspired in my education,and became somebody.
Damn ! This resonated with me haha ... I hated physics and most studies because my teachers made them so boring when I was a kid . They’re the real criminals 😤😂
Cause they Just memorize and vomit for money,they Don't have interest in it
Arvin, "What is Dark Energy made of?" is another fascinating and very interesting video. You're taking the viewer further into the mysteries of the Universe. Will we ever find the Answers? Well done and well explained.
Thanks for being a reviewer. I appreciate your eagle eye!
Captain Miller, the answers have been found. Max Planck knew, all those years ago (as evidenced by his 1944 speech in Florence, Italy). All is Thought in the Great Mind that many call "God." As Planck said: "This Mind is the matrix of all matter." ALL IS THOUGHT. And that's as close to absolute Truth that either science or religion is going to get, so long as we are experiencing LIMITATION. Want to know more? I've got it. But I don't receive TH-cam comments notifications, so investigate me and you can contact me through my websites, if you are one of the tiny minority of people (at this point in time) who truly seeks Truth, with a capital "T." My regards!
Indeed, this video really illustrates the mystery that the universe is. The deeper you dive in, the more mysterious it becomes.
If you smoke DMT, you dive further into the mystery than you could ever imagine, in fact you become the mystery. Not trying to advertise it, but it gives a perspective and experience on a whole new, indescribable level.
Do you really want to know what is causing space throughout the universe to expand exponentially with distance? Because no one else wants to listen to what I have to say. I not only know what dark energy is, what is causing it but I came to the conclusion that the action causing space to expand is responsible for both gravity and dark matter too. So simple I can't believe Einstein didn't figure it out back in the early 1900's. Maybe because if he had acknowledged this action the secrets of the universe would have been widely understood and there would have been little reason to research astrophysics any further?
An easy fix to Einstein's field equation. After I fixed his equation it took general relativity in a different direction. Instead of the postulate nothing can escape the gravity of a black hole, not even light it turns out that nothing can fall into a black hole, not even light. Thus in 2004 I made the prediction that eventually astrophysicists would discover black holes to be spewing massive amounts of energy. When the energy slows to a rest relative to the black hole it converts into elementary particles, heat and electricity (electrically charged hot gas). The gas is NOT attracted to other mass until it loses it's heat and charge.
Thus the energy and gas that surrounds a black hole will be found to be moving away from the black hole in every direction. The stream of hot energy and gas flowing away from a black hole will not allow matter to get close to a black hole. The black holes do not have event horizons. They do not have photon spheres. They do not have accretion disks! All these predictions and more, like the information paradox is wrong. I'm sure you'll want to talk or meet me soon after direct observations of Sgr A* show that I'm right.
Dark energy = repulsive gravity or hyperbolic geometry.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter
Negative curvature is dual to positive curvature (Gauss, Riemann)
Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- The Hegelian dialectic!
Perpendicularity in hyperbolic geometry is measured in terms of duality.
Not a physicist, not a mathematician, not a scientist, but hooked on Arvin Ask. I'm hanging on by a thread and will need to re-watch most of his videos because they are fascinating.
Great video as usual! On a side note, I've always had trouble accepting that the universe was flat. Nothing in space seems to be flat. Plus, this seems eerily similar to how people thought the earth was flat until they were able to explore it and then ultimately calculate that it was a sphere. I think that we will have one of these revolutionary moments with regards to space, and hopefully we will have it in my lifetime. I realize that the data we have so far suggests a flat space-time, and I have nothing that can show otherwise...this is all based on my opinion (which is ignorant, I know, but everyone is entitled to one).
You have to remember that "flat" in terms of the universe means flat in 3D, not flat like a pancake. The means there is no overall curvature to 3D space - parallel lines will stay parallel forever.
@@ArvinAsh yes of course. It's very hard for me to imagine our universe wrapped around a 3-sphere (or is the universe the 3-sphere?), so I don't know what the implications would be. I imagine that all parallel lines would eventually converge, and we would be able to look out in any direction and eventually see ourselves (assuming we lived long enough for light to circumnavigate the 3-sphere).
Other people do a good job explaining these things too. But you by far make these concepts the most comprehensible!!
How do you only have 235K Subscribers? You're an extremely underrated person!
My favorite TH-cam channel for science content
I'm a doctor from Bangladesh. I love cosmology and astrophysics.
I like your videos and watch them regularly ❤
Best wishes for you ❤
dontknow What the hell is wrong with you?
Michael Thompson Well if you can’t figure that out for your self then I feel sad for you.
@Michael Thompson Guy makes a pointless obnoxious comment and you can't get that.
@dontknow You mate. Kind of a dick comment. Unless I'm missing the joke.
You might say I am crazy after reading what is next but take a look to it, its a DNA picture that added numbers to it, found 6 forms to add sequences of numbers and all show entanglement as pairs in respective orbit(same), the figure is made by 7 circles, six of them encircle one at the center that is white that is the inside hexagonal, the 7 circles form 4 hexagonals that each belong a color so make 4 orbits and more dont have time to write it all but see some other programs of Arvin dont remember which but there are most of the numbers that move as around, its easier if you just take a look to my channel, all the photos are about the same in all videos, I think that this numbers might be of so much help to stop the CORONA VIRUS, all of the time in the very little time that i have just aplayed my 2 works to astronomy and they match so well, the thing is that dont know of DNA at all but believe the numbers say sentences and ways to dicode the language of all DNA maybe only the numbers of the virus are the ones that we have to see to just know how it does it and as well there is the periodic table in anlist 5 forms of making groups, CANT explane all not even in the videos is the time of litlle times of over 14 years that is out there with diferent people but they are kind of blind to see them anlist the ones I gave all my 3 books in coppy right, it is worth it to look at them if you find some numbers to share with as they are welcome in here or where ever you whant, the bottles are out in the sea hope you will open yours.
You're the only channel that I pay attention to every word you say and absorb so much. Even though I don't understand roughly 25 percent, it's still a worth the watch. Keep up the hard questions and theories.
Well dont turn to another channel you will be waisting time.
I recommend listening to Sabine Hossenfelder's interview Dr. Sarkar's as he addressed why the other lines of evidence don't have as strong of a weight as it seems at first glance and it was quite enlightening changing my perspective on the issue considerably.
In particular he points out that in processing data for the large scale structure of the universe scientists have assumed large scale isotropy of the universe which is a valid critique regardless of whether or not he turns out to have been right or not as while valid for fitting a model it is not valid for finding a model. In terms of statistics this is assuming and underlaying distribution and fitting for what parameters the observations best fit despite not having a statistically significant sample size.
Assumptions are important to keep into consideration as this assumption has been applied across cosmological results despite existing evidence that our universe is not isotropic from the CMB model and more recent efforts to map out the large scale structure of the universe via surveys. In principal the problem with this assumption is that the distances corresponding to a given redshift are based on the assumption the large scale distribution of matter is isotropic i.e. assuming isotropic galaxy distribution beyond 100 Mpc(mega parsecs). However he goes to explain how this assumption does not match the data which shows a non local anisotropy corresponding to the CMB dipole within the radio with mean motion four times larger than the CMB dipole additionally using tomography they found the same dipole in the raw supernovae observations except with higher uncertianty due to the far smaller sample size but most importantly significant anisotropy presisted out to the Shapley Supercluster around 200 Mpc which is enough to invalidate the model assumption of isotropy beyond 100 Mpc. Since then other astronomers such as the Nearby Supernovae factory have determined this anisotropy extends well beyond that distance. And the most recent result of survey using 11,000 high redshift galaxies extends this observed peculiar velocity flow even further with tighter error bars
Since the model assumed to compensate for the lack of data assumed no peculiar velocities and 3 quarters of the galaxies in the type 1a supernovae catalog have been found to have peculiar velocities in a bulk flow it is not valid and there is not a large enough sample size to claim high significance you can't actually rule out any models or claim particular values with any degree of confidence as there is still a sizable chance that the observations are noise well below 3 sigma.
He also says the covaliance matrices they used to correct the initial supernovae data were not positive definite and thus their corrections were unphysical .
Dr. Sarkar does not make any claim that dark energy does or doesn't exist his argument is that we don't have enough observational data to make a high confidence observation for cosmological observations i.e. the sample sizes are too small for you to be able to remove false positives right now we can only test fits for independent models but that doesn't tell you the real distribution as any models can achieve a significant fit with the right parameters. This is the crux of hist argument there just is not enough data to actually assess if a given model actually fits the data well or not because the sample size is far too small in order to actually claim 3 or higher sigma. Attempting to combine data sets or using empirical correlations allow you to artificially boost the apparent sigma value however this introduces errors from all the biases and assumptions needed to compare them which renders it just as unreliable.
The Square Kilometer Array will hopefully give a large enough sample size for cosmological if it actually comes to fruition without that there isn't enough data to actually make a confident claim about effects at the cosmological scale which applies to the Supernovae data, Baryon Acoustics observations, measurements of the curvature of the universe etc all need far more data than we currently have in order to actually build a large enough sample size to apply statistical methods with enough accuracy to actually select for models as opposed to fitting models.
It all comes down to that independent distance measurements are needed beyond redshift to interpret redshift properly and this is hard to do but no amount of fancy statistical methods can allow you to get around the simple fact that there is not enough data to actually rule out cosmological models.
Basically he is calling out the cosmological community for not properly doing statistics with sufficient mathematical rigor to make the claims they are making, largely because the effects they are looking for are small so you need a sample size of millions to billions to actually get a good enough distribution to rule out any model distributions. The observations tell us that the assumption of isotropy is invalid and thus the cosmological community needs to reanalyze their data that is his argument. Whether dark energy exists or not is external to the issue Dr. Sarkar raises. "We are trying to make a clear distinction between what is measured and the interpretation". As such the attacks on his work seem perplexing to me as they are mathematically and logically sound arguments.
th-cam.com/video/B1mwYxkhMe8/w-d-xo.html
I appreciate your time in response and I love your brain. See ya on the dark side
Galaxies are rotating much much too fast based on the matter we can see in them. They should be flying apart. Some kind of invisible energy must be holding them together OR the theory of general relativity changes as we start measuring things which are very far away and very large.
Wow. This is so in depth. Thank you SO much!
Great video ash. I enjoyed watching! do a video on electron degeneracy pressure PLEASE!
I love the clarity of the way you explain things to people. Great video!
What the heck is wrong with your hair?;)
What hair?
Back with another banger Arvin, your videos are ones that I will have to keep revisiting as my science knowledge slowly increases. I'm sure you could be a prominent figure in popular science teaching like ND Tyson etc... Have you thought about doing Q&A videos or vlogs or even trying to get on a popular podcast?
Have not. I'm just a small time TH-camr. But thanks for the thought.
@@ArvinAsh The reason I say it is because once the audience feels like they know the person making the video they will engage more.. It's sort of like sports personalities marketing themselves on the internet. A few behind the scenes videos and some answering of submitted questions and before you know it, someone like me (who has very little interest in sport) is now watching these sports stars play their game all because it feels like i'm watching a friend... Science people tend to market themselves terribly and this could be the reason for little engagement from the masses. You on the other hand are a very effective communicator and would benefit greatly on marketing yourself better to your audience.
The great thing about a vlog is that it has low production value but can be just as entertaining, think of you just out in your backyard sharing a thought experiment like a Feynman esc type thing.. I know intelligent people are usually introverted and have no interest in appealing to the masses but if you could overcome that hurdle, you'd be doing humanity a great service.
@@videoswithsubscribers-xk5hb Those are great thoughts! Maybe if the channel gets a larger following, a popular podcaster might want me. Hadn't thought about vlogs. I don't really know what they even are...lol. I thought my videos are like vlogs.
These equations are poems to my ears with your explanations. Thanx for the treat !
thanks for making these, always looking forward to the next one!
arvin ash explains like my best friend in school which explains better than the teacher
Thank you for another informative and extremely well-explained video; I always appreciate your videos and look forward to them - Stay healthy and safe!
Thanks brother. You do the same.
@@ArvinAsh It looks you have time to focus(answer this kind of comments) but not othrer.
You are better than PBS space time...really....you are fabulous
Wonderful video once again. We are made of the highly special 4% of the energy of the universe. Depends on the perspective if we look at it as minuscule or special.
I dont know why but i really love your videos and I wish you the best
And I know that you will reach 5 million subscribers very soon
Absolutely fascinating. Making me consider just how insignificant we are in the universe is a great tonic to the current human situation we're all living through. Thank you!
If only we could watch you tube in ten million years all these questions will be answered. Yes, science happens very, very slowly, especially on a budget. We always go to 'it could have happened this way' to 'we know it happened this way, because'.
We should be able to answer this is far less time than that.
Another stunning video Arvin, well done sir. Superbly explained.
He is good at that.
I had insomnia last night and kind of figured this out on my own, that as space expands there is more space, so more vacuum energy or quantum fluctuations or whatever you want to call it. All of a sudden, the acceleration of the expansion makes sense to me. Over truly huge distances, there is enough energy in the empty space to cause it.
I took shrooms one time and seen like this dark waves lines all connected like the net they show. I would put both my hands together in a O and seen it get compacted in the inner O of my hand. And when I would break the O seen it flow right back to connect with the rest
Was a mad trip it seems😂
So happy 2b back in school. Just wish twas 30 or more years ago. I'm all ears now. Love it. So relaxing ☯️peace love & happiness ✌️
Amazing way to teach
Very high quality videos. And you are so nice to hear
I appreciate that!
Thank you Arvin, very clear explanation.
He is an exelent explaner but the matter has no way to explaine it as you may hear: MAYBE, COULD BE, looks like, if, some how etc.
Congratulations!it's a very well understood video, thank you for sharing!
Arvin, I'm a person with only average intelligence on these subjects, and there is a question on my mind that maybe you can help me with. They say that the universe is flat in 4D spacetime, yet space is expanding. To me this sounds like a contradiction.
For example, imagine two spaceships lined up next to each other at a start line and setting out on a journey towards a finish line 90 billion lightyears away. The two space ships begin on a course parallel to each other and have the same velocity. They make no course corrections along their journey. Wouldn't the distance between the two spaceships gradually increase along their journey as 4D spacetime expands? And wouldn't their parallel courses curve away from each other proportionately to the time and distance travelled? To me this seems to indicate that 4D spacetime is saddle shaped.
What am I misunderstanding?
That's a really cool thought I know I can't understand it.
@dontknow Ok. So imagine the two spaceships being separated from each other at the start line by a large distance where the force of gravity is less than the rate of spacetime expansion.
First I have news for you, only highly intelligent people think they have average intelligence. Average intelligence people routinely think they are smarter than average. Regarding your question, that is an excellent thought experiment. Let me see if I understand correctly: Let's say the distance between the two ships is 1000 feet. Space within this 1000 feet is expanding at a very small but constant rate. But if the space between the two ships remains constant, the constant rate of expansion between the ships will be the same throughout their trajectory. In other words, the 1000 feet from where they started in space will have expanded the same amount as the 1000 feet at the end of their journey, so the trajectory would have remained parallel throughout.
@@ArvinAsh Let's say they are separated by more than 1000 feet so that the force of gravity doesn't interfere with the thought experiment. Let's say they are separated by a light year. Their finish line is 90 billion light years away and they are travelling at sub light speed.
At the end of their journey wouldn't they be separated by more than 1LY? Wouldn't they in fact be separated by several LYs by that point? Perhaps even millions or billions of LYs? And wouldnt the rate of expansion between them increase along the journey to a point somewhere along the way where they would be moving away from each other faster than C? And wouldn't their vectors eventually not be parallel anymore? Wouldn't they be curved away from each other, and in fact begin curving away from each other the moment they began the journey? They would seem straight to each individual spaceship but when tracked relative to each other by an independent outside observer they would be curved away from each other over time and distance, no?
It seems to me that the universe is saddle shaped, not flat. But all the experts in the field say that it's flat, so I must be misunderstanding something.
@@CallsignJoNay First of all I have to agree with Arvin's first point, and that certainly means something coming from a smart guy like myself! Now to my thoughts on the experiment:
*1. Does the distance between the spaceships increase?*
Yes, space between they will expand. And if for each newly created volume of space there is also an expansion (which I'd surely expect) it does speed up too. If it expanded fast enough and/or their distance is large enough their distance might even increase faster than c and thus the starships not be causally connected anymore (meaning they can't possible interact or communicate in any way).
*2. If their distance increases, won't their movement vectors diverge?*
Nope. Both of the ships is following a straight trajectory. The increase in their distance does not come from the ships moving apart (which would of course alter their movement vectors) but from the space between them just getting bigger. Neither ship experiences an acceleration/rotation due to the expansion of space. Therefore parallel vectors are conserved even if distance is not.
*3. What does that say about the geometry of spacetime?*
I have no clue. I honestly don't see in what way the expansion of spacetime would effect it's geometry. (flat, saddle-shaped or other)
Do my points make sense or did I mess up somewhere? I'm not a physicist after all xD
Just discovered you videos. I now rank your videos as essential bedtime viewing along you with Matt of PBS and Don Lincoln of Fermilab.
Love these!
This channel along with Physics Girl and Vertusin (spelled that wrong) are really good at explaining things.
Worth the time to watch
Sixty symbols as well
Did anyone call?
Most stuff in the universe seems to have a fractal involved, in a way that you can scale the concept up or down magnitudes and preserve the behaviour. Could some of the fundamental forces of nature be diferent magnitudes of a fractal? and dark energy be diferenct forces that manifests in super large scales magnitude?
PLANCK SCALE, BRUH.
@@felixcuevas1342 Google fractal patterns found in nature
Plasma and electromagnetism.
felix cuevas I think what he means is that perhaps gravity might behave differently on extreme scales, maybe if you get enough space between 2 points gravity inverts and repels instead of attracts, but then there’s dark matter which kinda doesn’t make any sense at all by that logic. Perhaps something very special happens on a galactic scale as in enough diverging realities gravities overlap around galaxies, but those realities are too diluted to notice on the scale of the solar system. I think we probably need a lot more data, and an order of magnitude more sensitive gravitational wave observatories or some other crazy experiments before we find out.
felix cuevas What are you talking about? As above or below what?
I try to combine the cosmological constant and the schrodinger solution on the planck scale.
I used planck units.
At the end I went back to SI units to compare with the measured vacuum energy density (0.63 10^-9 J/m^3.)
Combine:
1) Einstein, cosmological constant
2) Schrödinger solution
3) Planck units
Result:
- vacuum catastrophe solved?
1)Einstein, cosmological constant
Λ = (8π 𝐺 ƐΛ)/(𝑐^4)
Planck units:
G=1
c=1
Λ (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = (8π ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
1.1056 10^-52 (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = 8π ƐΛ
0.001149 10^-120 = ƐΛ
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1
2)Schrödinger solution, n=1
(ℎbar^2 𝑛^2 𝜋^2) / (2𝑚𝐿^2) = E
Planck units
hbar=1
n=1
m= mplanck =1
L= Lplanck=1
0.5 𝜋^2= E
1= E/0.5 𝜋^2
3)Einstein, Cosmological Constant = Schrödinger solution
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 = E/0.5 𝜋^2
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ Eplanck
Eplanck =1
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ
0.567 10^-122 = ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
0.567 10^-122 1.9561 10^9 /(1.61625502 10^-35)^3= ƐΛ [J/m^3]
ƐΛ = 2.627 10^-9 [J/m^3]
Measured: 0.63 10^-9 [J/m^3]
I am looking forward to your response.
Oh yeah, a 16 minute Arvin Ash video. Time to get the popcorn and prepare to learn more mind blowing secrets about the universe!
Lol. Sorry for the length brother! But I wanted to be as thorough as possible.
Arvin Ash I love the length. More time to be enlightened!
@@ArvinAsh I think 16 minutes is a great length for informational videos like this one.
It's an area of space where the mass of an area is experiencing a faster passage of time so it's wave moves faster through the system RELATIVE to us. It is both real from our perspective but non-existent to those within their respective areas of space. That's my thinking anyhow.
With gravity being something we don't know could dark energy be gravity in reverse . kind of like a positive and an negative . ?
It does appear to be a kind of negative gravity, but the difference is that its source is unknown.
The presentation and graphics are excellent👍👏😆
I am waiting for Einstein field equations
Amazing video. Always so meticulous. Great simplified explanation.
Thanks for the wonderful presentation. One silly doubt, if dark energy is so large why isn't it pulling us away from the gravity that we experience?
The effect is weak enough that gravity can overcome it locally but at the scale of the universe dark energy dominates because it is constant throughout space.
@@Mnomphalos thanks.
This something I've wanted to ask a theoretical physist for a very long time. Everybody talks about dark energy pushing out, but what if it's actually opposite, where the universe, spacetime, which isn't really a perfect vacuum, is simply being pulled from the outside by a more perfect vacuum? What if the big bang took place in a perfect vacuum of limitless space that was there ready to pull it apart? Wouldn't that help resolve why the universe is homogenous in every direction? It might also help explain why objects further away are moving faster than objects closer in to us? With the big suck, so to speak, pulling from the outside of the physical universe from every possible point. Oh...One more thing, make sure you give me credit if this turns out to be a thing, which I seriously doubt, but I really needed to ask this question.
Cheers! And, thank you for reading.
Mya
How does dark energy go with conservation of energy? oops serves me right for asking questions before watching the video
Great question! There are two ideas on this. The one I talked about in the video is that as more dark energy is added, it is counterbalanced by an equal amount of gravitational potential. But some scientist say that conservation of energy need not be preserved in general relativity. I prefer the former idea.
The second idea is prolly the truth.
Conservation of energy makes less sense the larger picture you see.
Seeing big red x's drawn through complex equations is incredibly pleasing lol ty!
When are you going to make a video about conformal cyclic cosmology
Arvin I had a few doubts from the video. Why would the energy density of dark energy in the quintessence field decrease if the dark energy to matter ratio deceased from 1 billion to 2.3. The decrease in the ratio means that dark energy should increase. And what is the 3 sigma and 2 sigma you talked about. What does the sigma stand for. I didn't get that part. Otherwise I understood everything really well. Great video as always👌👌
Great questions! On the 1 billion to 1 ration, it was the matter:dark energy density, where as the current 2.3 is dark energy:matter density. The point is that the discrepancy between the two was much larger in the past. The 3 sigma vs 2 sigma has to do with statistical analysis of test results. It shows how much variability there is in test results. . I should have explained this better, but in statistics, there is something called correlation of data. After conducting tests, the researchers take all their data and determine how well they show a pattern. A highly correlated pattern shows very high sigma levels, but if the data is highly variable, it shows lower sigma or more variability. If there is a lot of variability, then this could mean that the results may be random and not due to any pattern.
It's invisible, it's undetectable, can't find it. Maybe, the theory is wrong? You ever thought that you're looking for the wrong thing?
More like "making shyt up" to get funding from people who don't have any physics knowledge.
It’s invisible but not undetectable; we can see its effects. The wind is also invisible but we know it’s there.
@@quasimobius It wouldn’t be a TH-cam science video without the obligatory community college dropouts who think they’re more knowledgeable than career Ph.D scientists.
Hey Arvin - another great video. Please can you help with something I've been really curious to know:
In these kind of situations, which is more reliable or 'top trumps' - logical reasoning or scientific theory?
Are theories guided more by logic or maths (where direct observation is not possible)?
Interesting question. If there is not direct observation possible, then I think currently, any theory with a mathematical basis is going to be more credible. The problem with logic is that at the fundamental level, science is not always logical, since the universe has no obligation to be logical to us.
@@ArvinAsh It is logical to me, the universe is more logical than GR.
The toughest matter on Earth. Thanks for explaining what remain understandable of it.
Personally, I believe our theoretical approach to the Universe is, not wrong but incomplete.
Our science, my theory goes, contains one single erroneous preconception, which is causing a chain of wrong interpretations of the reality that sorrounds us.
The level of this wrong preconception stands where the concept of centrality stood before Copernicus, or where the concept of simultaneity stood before Einstein.
My idea is that the concept of separability stands in the way of understanding the true nature of the universe. Separability allows us to have "things" which perform "actions", equivalent to the names and verbs in our experience. Separability allows us to use the concept of numbers, fundamental to our science (and that may be the problem). Universe may well be seen as an iteration of different actions, where objects and particles are perceivable, but are not really true, being a conseguence of the iterations mentioned above.
Does the Lorentz transformation equation make any suggestion as to what sort of particle might possess negative energy? Specifically, if you ignore the seeming barrier of the infinity at c and just go ahead and calculate the transformation for v>c, what would be the mass and energy of any particle in that realm? Would it be possible for particles to pass into our observable sphere from beyond the boundary of the observable universe where the recession rate equals the speed of light?
Luminosity you say ;)
Good to have you here luminosity!
You are making India proud..
😄😄🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳.
By putting best content out there.
❤️❤️
Plot twist: Aristotle was visited by alien sentients called "Celestials" which revealed some interesting stuff to him.
";-)
TONY or he did drugs
Aristotle smoked weed
Ancient Astronaut Theorists say yes
@@Cyber_Kriss not the only one, green is ok. dont exed to much please. even good staff like food or drinks may kill you.
Best video ever!
I know what dark energy is, SIMPLE , it is the thing that compensates for the errors in cosmological theories
Lol. Right
You just said what we all are thinking
Super! Thank you. A voice for reason.
For sure
It's the fudge factor of cosmology, and exists in huge amounts within the imaginations of those who continue to support the "Big Bang" theory.
Excellent video. I like the fact that you give credit even to scientists with different view points. I like the fact that you keep an open mind. I really like your videos.
Thanks. I try to present evidence, not a point of view.
@@ArvinAsh you do that very well. I sent your links to several people I know that like physics but are not profesional scientists. They can get the big picture.
Your video is amazing but i am soo dumb that i didn't even understand anything :p
Sorry to hear that. I put a lot of information in this one, so I highly recommend multiple viewings. Like good wine, you will pick up new tastes with every sip.
noone really understands this.
if you know that you dont understand it, you know more than 90% of the people. congratulations mate :)
@@ArvinAsh dont take to much then your thinkings as well your equilibrium will go down to the floor.
@@certaindeath7776 5 persen is real the other who knows?
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace Yes
th-cam.com/video/_AdPiRWIam0/w-d-xo.html
I have always hard times to imagine that the universe is expanding because I can't imagine that space has boundaries. This leads to the question in what the universe is expanding.
70% of the universe is sponsors like Magellan TV.
Hmm,nicely said. They are everything but still gets less screentime
Bonjour Arvin. J' habite à Toulouse et je trouve que tes vidéos sont toujours aussi didactiques’ les meilleures que je connaisse sur YT. Sais-tu ou va l'énergie d'un ressort comprimé que je jette dans de l'acide fluorique. Do-you understand me’ arvin? and continue your vidéos . Tanks
L'énergie potentielle du sping est convertie en énergie thermique que vous pouvez détecter comme une augmentation de température dans le liquide. La température augmente même sans compression, mais la température augmente légèrement plus avec un ressort comprimé. En fin de compte, une augmentation de la température est une augmentation de l'énergie cinétique des molécules du liquide.
7:17 actually, there are 5 elements in the universe: air, earth, fire, water and infinite stupidity.
It's only your videos that i have to watch at least thrice...
First I'm happy to know... oh..!there is a new video from arvin ash...
Afterwards I'm holding my head with both of my hands... watching the video again and again... thinking oh i got to grasp it..
Anyhow... great work... thank you very much sir.
He is good at explaining why did it take to long to get it?
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace not everyone is smart like you..!
There are also people like me...
Dumb but curious.
@@asifbajwa826Iam not smart as you think, I understood the video very well cause all the videos that are out there in you tube are made with out the math that is a thing that always gave me hard time as well grammer, but if you are a beginer in this kind of programs that is why maybe you didnt get it at the first time. some times is hard to me to get ideas that are so simple for others, as well I like to wonder in the forms of things as well always I wonder of the cosmos and love each video that speak of the cosmos spetially if there are some graphics in the video. - dont think that you are dumb person ; just tried to make a jocke as i like to do when i write in the coment section, some times the comments make me laugh a lot, thanx for writing.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace it's extreme and complex science... that is hard to comprehend ... you know there are lots of theories... and theories are not facts but they are fascinating...
The real hard thing is to extract the true possible real knowledge out of all those theoretical ideas.
So you have to accept or dismiss a theory to believe in it..
Arvin ash gives his own possible conclusions but we have to conclude the end result on our own. Am I right..?
@@asifbajwa826 See you are not domb at all, yes you are right, you have to conclude the end result in your own based on what you know or believe for some reason. - I am almost totally against physics in the way they see the cosmos, they see a flat space while mine is hexagonal coned shaped, they dont see it in colors and I see colors in the cosmos as well in the air, they see an ever expanding universe whene I see that it only breathes, they say all came to be the way it is by a BIG BANG but I think we only need bangs of all sizes but to get energy from it, i think light cant be constant at all but they do, i see that in the universe must be a north and south but not for them, they think that the neutral part does not interact with the positive and the negative whene i think it must to interact with both so to keep the systems stable and much more, I do have my channel if you like to take a look to my videos you are welcome. thanx for your words.
That's where all the toilet paper went 🤪
There is another possibility to consider. Maybe everything is made of just one entity which exists in two forms, dynamic energy (what everything is made from) and static energy ( a form of energy through which dynamic energy can travel at the maximum speed of light). Static energy in this thought model is the dark energy and has the properties of the Higgs field in a slightly different way than observed so far. In this concept dynamic energy in the absence of static energy can travel at infinite speed, but through a static energy field it reacts with static energy to which stiffens as a function of the speed of light and the quantity of energy. So very small amounts of energy can pass at the speed of light but larger quantities are impeded or deflected. Large energy packets exist in the static energy field as particles where the energy which wants to travel at above the speed of light can do so being deflected off the stiffened static energy shell boundary. The essential property of the static energy field is that the field pressure between particles is slightly less than the pressure from the broad static energy field, and this pressure difference is what we experience as gravity. But the same mechanism also pushes large masses of particles apart, creating the effect of cosmic expansion. Electro magnetism is created by energy loops which emerge from and return to a particle slowing and bunching to create an electron or merging with another particle loop to form a magnetic field line where the greater the number of merged particle loops the greater the field line size. The more loops the greater the field strength. From an entropy perspective this concept has a greater probability of explaining string theory than does the standard model. IMHO.
So we live in the goldilocks time
possibly.
Regarding the cosmological constant problem, I studied over five research papers and books. All frequencies of the harmonic oscillator are summed up. But the vacuum energy is only for 1/2 hw. Anything above produces a real particle, not part of the vacuum. Symmetry breaking is needed to produce mass. Since the huge mass is nowhere to be found, symmetry is not broken, which means the huge potential is still there. It can't be. That potential started the inflation period. After that, matter was produced and the potential must have gone down (Higgs field). Finally, many papers consider energy levels all the way to the Planck mass. This might have been the case at the start of inflation, which is no more. The only other times that mass is conceivably huge is in a huge gravitational field, a black hole. No space expansion there. Can you clarify all this?
7:18 Isn't it h/4π?
It depends on which version you use. If you use position and momentum on the left side then it would be 4pi. I used energy and time. In this case, the right side is actually the reduced Planck's constant, so it's over two pi.
@@ArvinAsh I wonder. There should be no difference between the momentum-position (p-x) uncertainty and the energy-time (E-t) one because circular frequency
ω=2π/T=2πE/h
(where T is the period) is just the temporal counterpart of the spatial "wave number" (rather wave density)
k=2π/λ=2πp/h
where λ is the wave length.
I read many papers about the cosmological constant problem. Even with renormalization, the sums include very high masses, since the potentials of the quantum harmonic oscillators allow that. Mathematically, yes, but physically, the potential can't be high everywhere in the universe. It was extremely high during inflation but came way down later. It's not just about dark energy because during the atomic era, energy density was already very low, though, about 10^5 higher than the dark energy era. I don't see a problem with the 'cosmological constant problem'.
I never knew there was the same hostility towards dark energy as there was towards the big bang and the moon landing by certain people until visiting the comment section of this video. Guess you learn something new everyday.
If you keep reading the comments on my other videos, you will also find that there is apparently a big iconoclastic population of people that reject most anything that science can not completely answer, relegating it to various forms of conspiracies and malicious intent by mainstream scientists. If only we were that well organized.
Coooooooool
Well you should of definitely have left out the moon landing in order to criticize people who don't go along with what is being said in this video. If you actually believe they landed on the moon, could you please explain what the purpose of doing so was ? And depending on your response, another question might be àsked as to why have they not gone back there since
@@richardnelson4112 To clarify, I wasn't necessarily implying that people who don't believe in the moon landing are stupid or have no basis for their opinion, I was simply drawing a comparison between how both groups seem to have this same hostility towards the idea, be it the moon landing or dark energy, and express their discontent in a very hostile way. And I would prefer not to get into arguments with strangers over the internet, if possible. I learned years ago that, win or lose, it doesn't really matter.
@@BillyBob-cx5vi But there's a very fundamental difference between these two (Moon landing and everything "dark").
That is, said "everything dark" are purely mathematical constructs with no actual proof beyond "observations don't agree with the previously accepted theory".
In about every other field of science, a theory that is wrong by such a huge margin would've been thrown out the window after double-checking the results.
This is the best explanation of dark energy. 👍👍👍
Einstein told us. Dark energy is space itself expanding. This is also why it can expand faster then the speed of light.
Also, and this is just an assumption, black holes sucking in stuff is what’s fueling the dark energy.
idk dark matter seems wayyy to vast to be caused by something thats usually only 5-10 M☉ the milky way center black hole is 36 million M☉ the dark energy in the Milkey is roughly about 100 billion M☉ and whats strange is its actually way less then people thought before. there is a theory though that the dark matter itself is caused by primordial black holes, aka microscopic black holes. i think there caused by neutrino like particles because they are extremely abundant.
Raoul Duke perhaps. I’m pretty stupid so a lot of this is just me taking information I’ve read and making sense of it.
I think dark matter is the container itself. Whatever the “area or space” is that ALL the universes is held in. So:
Black holes collect matter and shred it into energy. That energy is used to add more “universe”. Thus adding more dark matter.
As an interesting side note. And this is regarding Einstein.
Einstein abandon his cosmological constant because he gave into the idea of the dynamic universe. But what if Einstein was NEVER wrong? What if the universe is dynamic but the “container” that holds all the universe is static, like he believed??
That would mean Eisteins original calculations regarding dark energy is more accurate then anything modern scientists have come up with.
Where do you get the idea that the expansion is faster than light?
quasimobius the math and observations show us it is.
Raoul Duke perhaps. But if you could calculate the total amount every black hole has ever “sucked in”..... something that’s impossible because we can only measure the observable Universe. So we would need a way to account for the unobservable Universe and all the black holes that have ever sucked in material
As for the vastness.... remember the entire Universe used to be a single point smaller then an atom.
May i suggest you read the manus . It can at least for me bring a better understanding of the topic. But I certainly hope the James Webb telescope can provide us with measurements so we can rule out on or another of these theories or hypothesis. But as usual a very exciting show about this mystery
The extra vacuum energy comes from the empty space inside the heads of science deniers.
Nobel Prize please.
Clutchyfinger And flat earthers
Good thing that was the simple explanation..
dark matter is 22 % pure dark energy is 73.5 % and finally ordinary energy is 4.5 percent
Going to include the 70/30 coincidence to my Fine Tuning factors list.
Unicorn farts, duh.
Shoulda thoughta that!
Next year's college course dark energy we found out it is unicorn farts
We remember Einstein implemented the Cosmological Constant to create a static Universe. I his equation the Cosmological Constant ( DarkEnergy) is a result of an Energy constant caused by the first law of Thermodynamics- Energy is neither destroyed nor created, it just changes form.
What if dark energy can only be measure by an unconscious mind,or in the other dimensions of life
Like ghosts?
I grew up being told the notion of aether was alchemist woo. Now, modern science is finding out space is not empty at all, in more ways than one.
Space definitely is full of stuff. The concept of ether was a little differnet though. It was really created to be a kind of stationary reference frame that other things could be measured against. And there was no theoretical basis for it. The "stuff" of the universe today is very well defined, however, and has theoretical bases to support it.
@@ArvinAsh Indeed. Thank you for putting your effort into these videos and help bring these hard to grasp topics into the public discourse. Kudos.
Cold ionized hydrogen at a specific wavelength. You’re welcome!
Fascinating video
Too many holes and ignorance in this field, many clues to find out
The universe is probably infinite or at least 250 times larger than the observable universe. Could there be areas beyond that that are collapsing? Maybe the local area we happen to be is an area that is expanding, but somewhere else you may run into where the universe is contracting.
This could be happening in many places that are expanding and others that are contracting. The areas expanding are like ripples in a lake.
So the dark energy is just coming from the areas of the universe contracting pulling on the fabric of space. At some point they may reverse and start expanding in a big explosion, sending a long of contracting space back at us, and our area will become the area contracting and stretching the universe around us.
@H D Sounds good, black holes are said to be the opposite of the big bang or inside them possible big bangs. The math of the two seem to line up that way.
But I dont think of the black holes as the areas pulling the universe to expand and cause the appearance of dark energy. I think thats just concentrated matter causing infinite mass at a point and curving the space time infinitely.
For instance, the sun with its same mass happened to be a black hole, the planets would continue orbiting without effect. It doesn't seem to be pulling the fabric of space and causing more of it, its just curving it.
Really just throwing this idea out there. I think dark energy is just how space behaves. If you have a square foot of space it will turn into 2 square feet after a moment, and those two new square feet will then also expand. Its just what space does.
@H D Black holes cant exist with only one charge, some say that white holes are the pairs of black holles but if so the way they draw them is not correct because where to oposite charges meet there is always a disc created by both and they no even speak of the disc that acts as neutral and has or is made by both charges.
@@evollove19 math works but in the right frames, dont think the math of flat space is the right frame.
Why, it's made of rainbows and unicorn farts and lots of imagination.
All is made of light in 7 diferentcolors(frequencies) that is the rainbow partner.
What makes space?
Is it replicating or stretching?
If stretching, would that mean that our universe could tear/rip apart?
What would it mean to us for our universe to tear or rip apart?
In string theory
I think Inverse waves among the strings would make matter and or power disappear and/or weaken and Would that be the same as a black hole?
On the other hand increasing the resonance of said wave or vibration would make matter and/or energy appear and/or get stronger. Would that be a white hole?
"What is Dark Energy made of?" Assumptions and confusion.
in 2020 we call that seeking
@@libertequeliberteque3521 that is beeing for decades, stars dont have to behave like planets, planets are solid masses, stars are pure PLASMA, planets are positive charge and stars are negative so dont spect them to act the same other wise wouldnt be systems.
Are you sure about negative energy? IIRC impulse-energy tensor contains not only energy component important for normal gravity (as opposed to frame dragging effects), but also pressure. Dark energy has positive energy, but also experiences such a huge negative pressure that it produces antigravity stronger than energy's gravity. Expanding universe makes dark energy experience even higher negative pressure, so antigravity increases in time. This way DE can be matter-like stuff with dynamic density, but not decreasing as time goes by
Very good thoughts. I think that is a viable alternative hypothesis.
Is there a video going more in depth about the vacuum and particles coming into existence, what he talks about at 5:10? that graphic is blowing my mind
this channel is becoming a very nice complementing pair to pbs spacetime.
Well, I hope my videos are easier to understand?
Arvin Ash Definitely easier to understand, though I always love when you go in depth
@@ArvinAsh haha maybe a bit. Both channels are great though. keep it up.