The Fringe Theory That Could Disprove Dark Matter | Answers With Joe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2024
- Create a daily learning habit. Sign up at www.brilliant.org/answerswithjoe for 20% off a premium subscription.
Quantized Inertia is a type of modified relativity theory that explains inertia as a fundamental force of the universe that could do everything from explain the rotation of galaxies without using Dark Matter, to the expansion of the universe without Dark energy, and may even allow anti-gravity propulsion. If it's true, that is.
Support me on Patreon!
/ answerswithjoe
Get cool nerdy t-shirts at
www.answerswithjoe.com/shirts
Thinking of getting a Tesla? Get free stuff if you use my referral code:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
Snapchat: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
=================
LINKS LINKS LINKS:
Mike McCulloch's paper on Quantized Inertia:
arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantiz...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_e...
resonance.is/pseudoscience-vs...
physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
www.americanscientist.org/art...
Sixty Symbols on the Casimir Effect:
• Casimir Effect & Black...
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
PBS Space Time on the Unruh Effect:
• The Unruh Effect
PBS Space Time on Hawking Radiation:
• Horizon Radiation - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[LIVE] ย้อนวันวานกับนางเอกยุค 90's #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.42 (8/6/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MslQDdFwULE/mqdefault.jpg)
Inertia explains why I have a hard time getting off the couch since a body at rest wants to stay at rest.
I haven't even got out of bed, let alone the couch.😜
This
Doesn't explain being drunk though. When my world is spinning I can easily change direction... like all the time
Lol.
Yep
As I'm seeking employment as a fact checker: yours was wrong with the 2010 Hawking radiation detection. it's believed it could have been Cerenkov radiation instead. Also it wasn't from a black hole obviously but from a complex prism-laser structure that may not really be the best representation of reality. It was also never followed up upon so it's also technically fringe science. It's a fringe science inception. Fringeception
@EmperorJuliusCaesar Hello wonderful... imperator ??
whoa, Anton we watch the same stuff. love your channel.
@@gvardiecky9507 Anton+Petrov+What+Da+Math Google it. ;)
Hello 🤩 wonderful person, Anton!
It's good to see you here! I would love to see a collaboration with you and other TH-cam hosts!! We love Joe Scott too, and many other TH-camrs. How about some crossovers? Anything to round out our understanding.... it takes a village.
daddy anton
13:37 That's not saying much about DARPA level of interest. 1.3m funding over 4 years is the DARPA equivalent of our idle google searching.
Actually this pretty typical for a 6.1 funding level of this kind of purely theoretical academic research. It will increase if it progresses to the 6.2 level (applied research). If you didn’t get that then google ‘DOD research activity funding codes’
Exactly the point, while it is interesting enough to take a look, it's not interesting enough to throw any serious money at it. If the little investment pans out, no big loss (relatively by federal budget standards). 1.3M is peanuts to the federals. But if the sifting reveals a gold strike, then they'd throw more money at it. As it stands now with QI and EMDrive, it looks like they considered the sifting to have panned out.
1.3M$ over four years is what... Three people?
Leet
@@stulora3172 If they don't need equipment.
So glad that we have a 21st century answer for galactic gravitic anomalies. Dark matter/energy always seemed so desperate.
Not really desperate. "Dark" in dark matter/energy just means "something we cannot see or haven't found, yet". So basically unexplained phenomenon.
Its frustrating too! But at the same time I think it gives a lot of space to maybe explain certain unknown phenomena... I imagine there could possibly be an entire dark universe right inside of ours with its own set of rules, structures, perhaps even intelligent life
creator 44 i dont think so. Its interesting to think about, but since we share gravity with dark matter, and gravity falls off with the square of the distance which can only exist in 3 dimensions. Another complimentary universe would mean 6 dimensions- gravity would fall off far faster than it does currently.
You lost me at Hawkin
Better than being interested and trying to fix global warming and poverty, humans were always gonna self destruct, its a losing battle, so why not at least take interest in something cool and smart than dealing with idiots in the short time we have to love
I need one of those fact checkers. Edit: well one that doesn’t get so distracted.
Cody! When one of your fave TH-camrs watches another of your fave TH-camrs. Haha
All you need is a 3D copier.
You both should colab with 3 blue 1 brown
Hey cody updates soon about the new mine?
Its nice to see you guys follow each other , i do enjoy watching both of your channels
Fact check: the Hawking radiation was not observed yet. It was just simulated in an analog lab system.
Observed in a lab with millions of dollars of expensive and accurate equipment
It's impossible to observe hawking radiation (coming from stellar mass or larger black holes) because of the heat of the CMB, we need to wait a couple of billion years before direct observation even becomes possible
@@mvn4844 exactly. There is no way to directly observe it as firstly we have no way to detect it and even if we could they would be lost in the cloud of other signals and radiation being output.
Didn't know we were able to recreate an event horizon of a black hole in a lab.
@@Skylancer727 other than that recent Penrose´s theory..
Thank you for being the one person (that I've come across) on the entire internet, that always makes 100 percent sense. Especially when it comes to topics like these.
Dark matter and dark energy have always smacked of "Here there be monsters." I've always felt like they were just place holders until we finally understood the reality of the situation. I get the feeling that two hundred years from now, people will laugh at the concepts. As for saying QI is fringe science, well, plate tectonics was fringe science too for a hundred years.
Yes, we should just accept the fact that general relativity is philosophically, scientifically, and mathematically incorrect.
You are correct, Sir. However, it will not take 200 years.
For the frequently wretched insects that we are, however, we're doing just fine. The 1% of reality we are able to observe, measure, and accurately describe is truely impressive for such a limited species. Don't you think? After all, a few generations ago, a knapped flint ax was the cutting edge of technology.
Shhhhhh..... You are giving the creationists hope that they have a fringe science, and not a blatant delusion.
At last, you've put my thoughts into words. 😝
That's how they knew to keep looking for the Higgs Boson. The math didn't work, so they figured there must be a particle they couldn't find. It took a while, but they found it, exactly where it was predicted. So this means they had a placeholder to make the math work for all the other particles, then found the Higgs once technology advanced enough. I don't have a problem with them using a placeholder until they discover what it is.
Bloody hell, my brain just fell outta my left ear . . and wow it's much smaller than I hoped . .
If it fits through your ear-canal, then probably yes.
egyptians have proven that's just ear boogers. to access your brain, drive a big nail up your nostril and your brain comes out as nose boogers. egyptologists have then proven once you do that you achieve immortality and grow these rings of a cloth-like substance over your skin, but there's a side effect of the hardening of your joints. people who see you may have the reaction of calling out for their mother in a neotenic manner.
@@BenjiSun Facts
A brain falling out is a sure sign of beeing too open minded. Try beein more sceptical, it might help.
@@dsvilko Thanks for the advice, but I am sceptical about your advice . . (!)
Ok, ok... When can I have my Enterprise? 😐
Pull an asteroid to near earth orbit and start construction
You know that with a QI drive you have to put up with annoying Q right?
Maybe in our lifetime, if DARPA sponsored experiments would be succesful. See also the most recent McCulloch's paper: "Propellant-less Propulsion from Quantised Inertia". He might be our real Zefram Cochrane. :)
@@icaropereira3218 Let's hope it is just a coincidence... ;)
@@tokenlau7519 Well... Does he like rock? 🤔
I appreciate the fact that you try and explain these complex ideas for the non scientifically trained viewers. Keeping it as simple as possible with a refreshing dose of humor mixed in. THANK YOU!! - a new fan.
The Casimir effect helps your computer work. When you set up two plates really close together, the particles between the plates are forced to slow down and lose energy, creating a cooling effect in the plates. This is used to cool the microchips in your computer. It can only be done on a very small scale, but if you had a Casimir device the size of a piece of bread, it could air-condition your home for free. That is a very tall order, however, as manufacturing super-flat plates of that size is not possible right now.
"Fringe science" doesn't mean "pseudo-science," it just means outside of the mainstream interpretation of existing evidence, but still following accepted scientific practice..
Pseudo-science is something that presents itself as science but doesn't follow accepted practices for science inquiry - so using it with a real scientist is a seriously offensive slander.
You look like the guy in tge video
All science is a model,( read fAke) but it's the best we got now.
Accepted practice just means we can extract use from the idea not that it is the complete truth. To say otherwise makes science a religious dogma. Which I think is your stricture
@@billrussell7672 accepted practice means they follow the scientific method, which is less biased than any other known. If you call that a dogma then you're freaking ignorant and probably flat earther.
@@Chizzoide so how long have you been in science cult?
You need to free your mind that your science god is always right, most of the time it resembles blood letting and patent medicine. .
Take gravity for instance , if modern science had not scrapped æther when we stumbled upon the casmir effect we would have left forward 100 years finding subatomic gravity and working out æther repulsion from mass. Science is down right stupid at times chucking the tub out with the baby and keeping the water. And the wholesale falure of electrodynamics Therory. Then the double slit fraud,
On and on science is the Stokes monkey on display.
You need to get this one thing in your head. They don't want regular people to understand the big picture, science is poisoned with relativity to keep the magic of knowledge a secret. In truth you have to be a savant or a polymath to see thru the curtain that the Wizzard Oz is just a ordinary men who look at extrodan with simple eyes and simple minds
@@billrussell7672 Lol! Better tighten that tinfoil hat of yours!
Fact check: erotosthenes calculateed the circumference of the earth in the 3rd century bc, not 100 bc. But you said that before you brought in your handsome fact checker.
He calculated the circumference and thereby determined the shape, in 240 BC. I don't think he lived 233 years in adulthood!
@@angaatkeeda7971 The shape was already known prior to Erostoshenes.
Fact check: His name was Eratosthenes (Ἐρατοσθένης) with a/α as the third letter.
@@epajarjestys9981 oh man you got me
@@bulwinkle Indeed. He calculated its size, which is amazing, but that it was round was already long, LONG established. There is no known civilisation where we know that they thought the earth was flat.
"The Rindler Horizon gets super complicated, Im not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole.."
-Joe Scott
If I had a ten-foot Pole, I would teach him to play basketball so that Poland could win the European basketball championship
I'm willing to poke it with a snake-handling stick .
If we assume that in a sense , more dense/concentrated accumulations of mass "fall" into the future (t) faster , then it is concievable that they draw nearby mass "down" with them , in a manner analogous to a sinking ship drawing floating objects down after it .
The above would generate attractive behaviors , which would appear to be what we call "gravity" .
🤓
I love your back ground beat that plays when you are explaining things. Perfect!
the ball wouldn't keep going up and up and up in space
because there is no up in space
ha got 'em
....
i'll be leaving now
Bye then
You're forgetting your relativistic frames . . . Every direction in space could be up =P
If you decided which way up was, and then threw it that way, it would go that way.
"Down is towards the enemy gate" Ender's Game. Orson Scott Card
Directions are relative to the person/location.
Most languages use what we consider common directions, relative to the location/person giving them. But there are other ways to give directions, which can be hard to wrap our minds around, in a couple other, simpler languages (less complex; fewer ways to describe things, for instance).
More advanced civilizations use more defining words, but, directions are still mostly relative. ...so, “up” is something away from what we stand upon, and assumes gravity...up is away from a center of gravity.
Ergo, if one is out in space where there is no gravity pulling an object off-course (at which point, it’s going “down” towards a center of gravity), it could theoretically keep going (like Voyager?)....but loses its “up-ness”...it only is going “up” as it leaves earth; once beyond gravitational pull of earth, or other celestial bodies, it’s not going “up” anymore...it can be described as going “away”. But from the perspective of the thing traveling, it is simply moving from or to something else.
There’s something different about this channel. Idk what it’s just feels more personal and informal and I like it. Perfect mix of fun humor and facts. Keep up the good work👍🏻
It's his eyes. He's a hip-notist.
My favorite explanation for dark matter is the "Massive Gravity Theory" which states that the graviton actually has mass and therefore dark matter is huge amounts of gravity particles next to each other.
Ive watched this many times. Arguably one of your best. Not only positively enlightening, but incredibly entertaining to watch. Cheers! love your work mate 🤙💯
0:35 there is strong evidence that many early cultures knew the world was round prior to Eratosthenes. He was just the first person to give a "scientific" and relatively accurate estimate of the earth's circumference.
Prove it please
*shrug* It's not really a stretch. The Sun's round, the Moon is round... Why wouldn't the Earth be round too?
Others may have guessed that the Earth is round, but Erastosthenes proved it by calculating the circumference. In science, proving matters. Guessing doesn't.
@@trashaccount8859I read somewhere that the Egyptians knew the earth was round because they discovered the length of shadows for two identical buildings was different at the same time of the day. (They were separated and communication was through bonfires).
@@clausit that's exactly was what Eratosthenes did
02:35 I knew we would see one of the clones again! =D
BORK!
What... He's not a clone, just a really handsome guy.
@@joescott a genetic abomination for sure. 😁
bork! bork ! Bork!
BORK
Why do I watch stuff like this in the morning when my brain has hung up a sign in my head saying "Gone fishing"
Joe is one of the funniest TH-camrs around. I really appreciate this channel.
Fact check: virtual particles are NOT when a particle/antipartice pair are created. When that happens, those are REAL particles. Virtual particles are instances where the math kinda needs a "particle" but which are doing impossible things for such a particle. PBS Spacetime did a terrific episode on this.
The particle/anti-particle pair is analogous to describing an electron orbiting an atom instead of describing it as being located in a probability cloud. Modes of the quantum field are scattered due to the curvature of space-time at the event horizon. Frequencies longer than the radius of the event horizon are scattered outward while the rest are sucked inward. This creates a vacuum level lower than that of empty space inside and thus reduces the mass of the black hole. The frequency is tied to the Schwarzchild radius and is precisely why microscopic black holes emit so much more hawking radiation; their radius is much smaller and thus emits much higher levels of energy. Shorter wave lengths (eg. x-rays) are more energetic than longer waves (eg. radio waves). See that PBS video Leo mentioned. It is excellent.
You just blew my frickin mind, @@lg186282 . Random question (armchair space nerd here), do black holes... move? And would they experience this 'Unruh Radiation" and the Casimir effect as explained in the video?
@@MaurerPower846 You are too kind. Black holes spin rapidly and orbit their parent galaxy as any other star. In Stephen Hawking's paper on "Hawking Radiation", "Unruh Radiation" is part of the equation. The really cool thing is without a "Theory of Everything" Hawking's equations is only one possible solution. There are other proposed solutions for "Hawking Radiation", but they all have the same result; emission from black holes of photons with their wavelength equal to the "Schwarzchild Radius". Incidentally, I am an armchair physicist. My degree is actually in statistics which meshes very well with quantum mechanics.
I see it more as "generating" the field through "pulses" that "don't exist".
Like fourier transformations. But instead of using standing waves you use those "instantaneous" "pulses".
But the result is the same.
@@lg186282 "... statistics which meshes very well with quantum mechanics...." I've never liked either. They both seem like giving up on truth and just settling on what's popular.
If I roll a die, it's NOT a "1 in 6 chance of", it's absolutely guaranteed to land on the side that it does. I just don't have all the information necessary to determine which side that will be....so I give up....and say, "1 in 6".
Quantum mechanics has the same problem. Some how, "We can't know." turned into "It doesn't have."
Joe,
Quantized inertia might be a thing, but it's most definitely not a viable explanation for the collection of phenomena that lead astrophysicists to the conclusion of dark matter. McCulloch's claim on this point is an example of doing science backwards: Start with a pet theory, interpret an observation through a lens that assumes the correctness of the theory, then explain away or entirely ignore observations that are inconsistent with the theory. His ideas (at the very least in relation to dark matter) are largely ignored by mainstream scientists not because they are too controversial or because astrophysicists can't let go of dark matter as he would have people believe, but because they are wholly without merit and easily disproven.
If galactic rotation rates were the only evidence for dark matter, QI would still be in the running as a possible explanation. There is, however, overwhelming and varied evidence against all modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) species of explanations (of which QI is one) for the galactic rotation anomaly. Scientists DID at one time consider MOND theories to be viable and did not discard them simply out of a bias in favor of dark matter.
If QI or another MOND theory were the true explanation, one would expect to see the same amount of dark matter (or the same amount of QI or MOND masquerading as dark matter, if you will) wherever we look in the universe. This is not at all the case. Most notably, there are recent discoveries of a few diffuse galaxies behaving as if they contain almost no dark matter. These could not exist if QI were the reason most galaxies don't fly apart. All galaxies would obey the same laws. But if matter and dark matter are two different, separable things, it's easy to imagine how their proportions might not be the same everywhere. Speaking of which....
The Bullet Cluster and others like it also rule out non-dark matter explanations. These are galaxy clusters that we observe in the aftermath of a "passthrough" collision. The galaxies pass through without touching each other, but the intergalactic gas collides, heats up, and is currently concentrated between the galaxy clusters. When you measure, using gravitational lensing effects, both the total mass of the entire complex, as well as the masses of the lobes (galaxies) and of the central gas, you find that most of the mass is concentrated in the galaxies. However, when taking inventory of the visible light matter, most of it lies in the central gas. This is exactly as dark matter regimes would predict (the dark matter halos stay with their galaxies, since dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter except gravitationally) and requires an alternative (and almost necessarily convoluted) explanation if you're using something like quantised inertia to explain the galactic rotation anomaly.
Gravitation lensing can also be used to map the mass of non-colliding galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Again, the maps show massive halos surround and engulfing the visible matter in galaxies in a manner that is inconsistent with Dr. McCulloch's ideas and would therefore require an alternative (and almost necessarily convoluted) explanation if you're using something like quantised inertia to explain the galactic rotation anomaly.
Large scale simulations done by supercomputers fed only the known laws of physics and the observed proportions of dark matter, regular matter, and dark energy yield results that are substantially similar to the observed universe, from the time of the CMB all the way up to the present day. They also simulate back to the Plank era (I think), but of course we don't have direct ovservations to match up with that. If dark matter doesn't exist one would expect these simulations to yield results that look nothing like the observed universe.
Similarly, galaxy collisions can be modeled by supercomputers using the known laws of physics, dark matter, and ordinary matter (dark energy is not relevant on this scale). Again, the simulations match very well with observations. If dark matter did not exist, the simulations should not match observations.
I am not a physicist and confess I lack the expertise to evaluate Dr. McCulloch's many other claims. As a scientifically literate layperson, I can, however, say that his body of work contains many fantastic claims made without the same equivocation or caution you would expect to hear from virtually any reputable person in any field, especially science, when discussing potentially game-changing ideas. The fact that the one claim he has made that falls within my realm of knowledge and understanding can be easily dismissed tells me the rest is most likely junk science and can be safely ignored until and unless the mainstream scientific community decides it has merit.
Excellent writeup. You are quite right about the fantastic claims in McCulloch's work (as a rule of thumb, whenever someone starts to discuss free energy devices, worry -- worry a lot).
His ideas are actually based on circular reasoning: if inertia is due to radiation pressure, that means that the universe must already have a law that describes how objects move in response to forces, after all, pressure is just force over area. The law is F = ma, which gives a = 0 for F = 0, so inertia is already built in! The rest of his claims fall apart in a similar way. Unruh radiation can't affect inertia even in principle because it exerts no pressure whatsoever, and strictly speaking there are no horizons for any objects which accelerate for only a finite amount of time. Also, there seems to be a huge disconnect between the words he writes and the equations he writes. The main equations he writes everywhere were basically asserted without demonstration.
@@vacuumdiagrams652 Thanks VD, and thanks for the info. You should come out of eTirement and do some debunking! Debunk is best bunk.
Awesome thread!
Thanks! I'm just starting on a new job actually, but as soon as I have some time I have a plan for a couple videos related to this.
@@vacuumdiagrams652 how are you so certain unruh radiation cant affect inertia even in principle?
how do you know it doesn't exert pressure?
where is inertia built into the 2nd law of motion?
and since when is a physical demonstration required when doing theoretical physics. Should we have disregarded Einstein because he couldn't demonstrate that time flow at different rates? or the Higgs boson because we haven't observed it?
and as a rule of thumb, when you need to accelerate or rotate something to near the speed of light to create an unruh horizon usually requires energy, a lot of it
Hi Joe, thank you for all of your videos, I really love them and I hope to see many more :) . I am a research physicist working in testing Quantum Field Theories in the presence of gravity so Hawking Radiation and Unruh effect is very important for my work. If I could just point out one thing, Hawking Radiation was not seen in 2010. What Belgiorno saw was analog effects that are mathematically similar to Black Hole Event Horizon effects far away from the Black Hole but the analogy breaks down for events closer. Belgiorno's experiments were impressive, but they have been greatly oversold.
The 'ruh' part of Professor's Unruh is pronounced 'roo' like in kangaroo.
Unroo? Ex-marsupial. Hopped his last hop. Punching with the choir invisible.
Yep. I lived on Unruh St. In Philly.
All the Unruhs I've known (I grew up in a rural area with a number of Unruh families) pronounced it as un-roo.
Fact checker Joe was distracted by internet cats and missed that one.
He taught me physics at UBC. Hilarious and brilliant prof.
It's funny to think that the Earth being round was probably once considered fringe.
Still is. #flatearthsociety
@@enthused7591
So dumb.
Earth is obviously a cube.
The earth is round, but the moon is flat. Have you ever seen the other side of the moon? No, because it's flat.
@@SpecialEDy Lol even flat surfaces have two sides .
@@kunjukunjunil1481 who told you that, a Nasa scientist? The moon is a non Euclidean disc, something that is 2 dimensional doesn't have a top or bottom.
Joe, I’ve gotta say, I always enjoy your videos, and you do a great job of explaining complicated subjects. But what I am most impressed by is your way with a camera! You are a Natural! I always feel like we are having a personal conversation, you inject the right amount of humor, and you are perfectly comfortable talking to millions in front of a camera! I honestly think you should have a gig with the Science Channel or Discovery! If you had an hour’s show on cable television each week I would never miss it, move over Neil Tyson! Sure he’s a real smart guy, but he doesn’t have your way with the camera. It truly is a great and rare talent, you deserve all the success coming your way!
A blackhole's Event horizon is legit, even Chuck Norris broke into a sweat when he jumped out of it. Just glad he let the blackhole be.
Chuck Norris broke his foot off in that hole.
Chuck Norris kicked that star so hard it became a black hole.
Chuck Norris put the particle in wave particle.
Let's hope that this QI theory will enable us to boldly go where no one has gone before, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations... :) Perhaps we already have our Zefram Cochrane, and his real name is Mike McCulloch. ;)
@Lassi Kinnunen But it is fun to think like that.
Great video and funny as hell, Joe! I'm really not sure about QI but then again I'm not a theoretical physicist so it's more than out of my lane. I'd love it if it were true, but it'll take a lot more work to see if there's anything to it. Minor quip - Hawking radiation hasn't been observed. At least not conclusively, though there have been some interesting results by some researchers. All in all, brilliant job!
love yuer anser ..lol
The "observations" have been mostly done in analogous experiments (actually very recently): phys.org/news/2019-01-hawking-laboratory-black-hole-analogues.html
2018 AD, the year we all got into lanes.
QI cant be real because pbs space time has no video about that topic!
@@drkentstrife String theory is not real, dark matter is not real, and he has videos about that, so...
Really interesting. One of your best I ever saw. Accessible and mind blowing. Translating some hard stuff very well.
Thank you Joe, that was hilarious and twice as much informative, you are awesome!
Was that a "Chasing Amy" poster next to the fact checker?!
Yep. Good eye. 😉
I met Kevin Smith at an early screening of that movie and he signed the poster.
@@joescott AWESOME!!!!
@@joescott one of my best friends is the son of Mike Allred who did some of the artwork and the blunt man and chronic artwork, he also plays himself in that movie, ironically signing autographs on his own real life comic book, Madman.
What about Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall? And there's another theory which explains galaxy rotation curve without dark matter, it calls "Metric dynamics" by Russian scientist Sergei Siparov (or "Anisotropic geometrodynamics", which is expansion of special and general relativity theories), which states (from the second name) that our space is in fact anisotropic. I am no expert either in these, so Joe, if you'll able to do video on that, it would be awesome.
see my Mexican one Mr. carranza. its a mix with the old and the knew.
VERY WELL composed video, compliments!! It has one hell of alot of ideas just how to break up complex material. Again well done!!
Just love your style, philosophy, inquisitiveness for outside the box, lost technology, science answers, all your research as well as your skill for awesome documentaries on such interesting topics. Great stuff as always 💜🧐
Isn't the Rindler Horizon behind the observer or am I mistaken? Shouldn't the horizon be generated opposite the direction of acceleration?
Mike10131994
I'm pretty sure you're right - as far as i remember, it's created by parts of the universe leaving the area that's causally connected to the object, or rather, the object accelerating out of causal connection to space behind it. So it would be opposite of the direction of travel; though i could be wrong. But i feel like i watched a pbs spacetime about this lol
That's right, it's behind the accelerating body, and it's flat, a plane, not a hyperbola.
The diagram around 11:00 looked wrong since it led to inertia pointing the wrong direction.
If the error is as you say, then the diagram at 11:00 should have the background dots moving left instead of right. That'd at least point inertia opposed to acceleration.
I thought there was maybe a 50% chance I got that right. Maybe.
This falls into the "to the best of my knowledge, which is very shallow" category.
Yeah, that actually makes a lot more sense. Inertia should oppose acceleration, not make you accelerate faster.
But actually, I'm not convinced the horizon should really be close at all. Especially not close enough for the Casimir Effect to kick in. Gonna have to go watch the PBS Space Time episode on the Unruh Effect again...
Have you considered starting to include more interviews with experts on these topics?
That's a great idea!
I can't wait for them to get Sir Isaac Newton to agree to an interview...
@John Doe Yeah, it's rare to find a chatterbox like Stephen Hawing.
No need. I'm already showing myself to the door.
I'V had that happen on alpine skis. You explained it better than any lecture I've heard. I was calling it like a quantum.Bernoulli effect.
It is certainly the beginning of a fascinating conversation.
Great info delivered greatly - thanks Joe
no, Ernst Mach's name is NOT pronounced like 'mak' . It's a German name, pronounced exactly like 'Bach' -- as in Johann Sebastian Bach - just with an M.
Just with an M? So MBach? Bachm? Bamch! Nailed it!
And you can translte it as "seriously do"
Grammer Nazi , nice! Thumbs up
@@billrussell7672 no just telling others how it is right!
Calling someone a Nazi for trying to make things better is, just the same that you wrote!
If i am wrong i want to know it in a nice way, like he did it!
@@billrussell7672 Why Grammar? Pronunciation Nazi maybe, but not Grammar. It is MaCH (ch pronounced like Loch in Loch Ness)
Excellent explanations. Very much appreciated this videos as I was able to follow it, and it educated me on something I wasn't aware of.. also tying in things I thought I was aware of (hawking radiation) but really wasn't well enough informed about. Great context!
When Joe talked about Mach's principle I remembered reading about it as a kid in Dead Famous: Albert Einstein. Amazing book must read.
My translator says you had Mach right the first time, but gargle on that ‘ch’ like a good German.
Yeah fact checker didn't even get that right. 😂
An Austrian can confirm that. Good job!
yeah, it is not pronounce like the speed mach (which is the one, _fact checker_ uses) but rather like the "mu" of "much" with the german "voiceless velar fricative" sound (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch_(digraph)#German). That sound is probably best known from the German word *Achtung*
@@m.h.6470 Also McCulloch name should be pronounced with this "ch", like in the Scottish word "Loch".
@@m.h.6470 both are pronounced the same way, because the speed is named after the guy
It's 2019 and Ether is making a comeback.
I swear, the more I know, the less I understand.
The Ether has ...been back. Space time, in fact. The thing that bends and contracts. ;)
Aether was always there. We’ve just put the blankets over it when we didn’t want to acknowledge it
@@SneedyKetler thank you for spelling it correctly.
@@Ali-gh7rj They teach what we know, they don`t suppress science. They give the tools on how to do science, after that everyone is free to destroy the system
DAVAUD Yoann then you are understanding quantum mechanics perfectly .
Great summary man! ...thank you :)
Very interesting. And I liked your presentation.
I asked my physics teacher about this, his response: *eyes roll* “I don’t get paid enough for this”
EDIT: My teacher is quite knowledgeable in his subject, as you require a master degree in whatever you teach (Australia). He was being sarcastic. My intention wasn’t to fuel everyone’s tangent on hating on the education system.
Lol
It's like religion when I questioned it , they said" don't think about it it will ruin your faith!"
People who teach just follow the text book, people who learn use that to chart new vista's
@@billrussell7672 I think that it varies from person to person, not everybody has the intelligence to understand everything, and the people who does don't teach in universities or at schools, or at least not at small ones. But, since teachers are needed, people with less understanding of the topic are also useful :))
@@gamerdinbasarabia2093 the taxonomy of education is a book that conforms educators into a cookie cutter approach of ideas so as to not teach too much to worker class students. Only the most compliant have the blinders removed. ( Blinders are covers thAt only allow a horse to see the road ahead
@@billrussell7672 Do the teachers really conform to books? I don't know how in your country but where I am from teachers love improvisation, explaining more than is written in the book, if they have the knowledge of course :)
At the university the teachers don't even teach based to some books, or if they structure the course based to a book than that book is written by them, again, that's how teacher teach in my country, I do not know how they act in yours ;)
The only problem of our educational system, in my opinion, is students' lack of motivation, they just don't want to learn :(
Anything that disproves Dark Matter or comes up with a better explanation is good for me. Dark Matter comes across as a bit wishy-washy hand waving in the air explanation for something unexplained. Scientists are giving up too quickly when they give a reason of DM for something rather than really trying to find out the real cause.
Try the TEDx talk by the original theorist, McCulloch. He does a nice job of showing how Dark Matter is an increasingly complex kluge that they keep adjusting to fit the facts - he says it's essentially not science. Here's the link: th-cam.com/video/fnNKC82wUmY/w-d-xo.html
Bonus: a talk by Unruh - this is very deep physics but I kinda followed along for at least 1/2: th-cam.com/video/Ka1fme974ng/w-d-xo.html
@Gary Bickford
Nice, thx for sharing.
"He does a nice job of showing how Dark Matter is an increasingly complex kluge that they keep adjusting to fit the facts"
Some people like to criticize dark matter on the basis of rotation curves, but many fail to realize we have other independent lines of evidence as well. With dark matter (in what we call the Lambda-CDM model) we can predict the formation of the spongy large-scale structure of the universe, which is quite hard to obtain otherwise. We also have lensing experiments: we can directly measure the amount of mass in a galaxy by looking at how it curves the light going around it. When we compare this number with the mass of the visible matter in the galaxy (obtained from measuring its luminosity for example) we see there must be some invisible mass there as well. Such lensing mass measurements agree with the measurements inferred from the rotation curves.
Finally, while it's obviously impossible to predict any _single_ galaxy's dark matter content, the _statistics_ of galactic mass can be predicted and tested against experiment. Saying that dark matter is not science just because each galaxy has a different dark matter distribution makes about as much sense as saying planets don't make sense because each star system has a different planet configuration that you're fudging to fit the data. In reality, you're not fudging: you're measuring.
@Vacuum Diagrams
Nice. Thanks for sharing. I'm not close to well-informed on anything regarding dark matter and scientific evidence and research on it. So it's nice to read some coherent thoughts which may point to good info.
That first clip referenced above where McCullough presents his quantized inertia theory, I could not make sense of. Inertia is supposed to be the effect of some quantum whatever waves bumping off of some horizon? Which? The event horizon of the mass in question? How can anything bump off there. How can anything ever reach it?
I know that you don't regard his theory as having merit. But could you make sense of that basic idea? It's puzzling to me.
Gary Bickford mcculloch is out there and full of mistakes. Are you seriously claiming his is the hypotheses to follow...... he made a claim in that ted talk that stars travel faster than the speed of light. Listen at 9:35
Awesome video Joe, so much to learn.
This is the quality content that I'm subscribed for. This guy, is awesome!!!
Hi Joe, could QI explain the otherwise unexplained acceleration of Oumuamua? Or is this due to the occupants hanging a left at Sol?
Great...that choir chord will now be stuck in my head all day. AHHH (clouds parting)
It sounds like something that might have come with the original Fairlight CMI.
I love this channel! The videos aren't too bad either, thanks, Joe!!
To date....this is the only video of Joe's that I simply couldn't make it to the end of. After the third or fourth angel singing definition I was toast! Thanks Joe!
5:04 your first prouncation of Mach was better :D.
He still pronounced Ernst like an American, hehe...
You should make a video clarifying the difference in science between: Law, Theory, and Hypothesis. You say theoretical when you mean hypothetical. Theory has predictive power and is supported by observation (gravity, evolution, etc.). An idea that is put forward, but not proven is a hypothesis. A law is a statement consistent with observation, but does not predict or explain.
Sadly, "Law", theory and hypothesis are all fuzzy these days. String "theory" (probably the biggest offender in physics, and also essentially mandatory to turn a blind eye if you want to get into theoretical physics... theoretical physics nuff said), multiverse "theory", and so on.
The danger is that idiots will parrot: "evolution is just a theory".
@@davidbernhagen4316 or "gravity is just a theory"! as long as we can get people to understand the definitions we might stand a chance
the problem is even scientists use them incorrectly. The common use of theory today is the actual definition of law. Ive had people froth at the mouth when i pointed out theory by definition is unproven as yet.
@cdreid9999 Yeh, I have a theory that you do not know what a theory is. The difference between a theory and a law is not `proof`. You seem to be using the term theory to have a meaning more in line with hypothesis. I am guessing you dont believe in evolution?
Reminds me of some thought experiments, one of which was trying to find the amount of space the was generated by creation/recombination of virtual particles that would mathematically equate the expansion of the universe
me too, me too
this is one of my most favorite episodes Joe, thank you
10:47 so it is true that when you throw an object, little angels go pushing it all the way, keeping the object's momentum.
Renaissance guys were right.
But the little angels need something to stand on while they are pushing or they will just move backward.
I propose little flying turtles like the big one the Earth rests on... only little... and with wings... like in Mario Bros.
When do I get my Nobel?
@@stevenstewart3414 Head of a pin, of course. Head of a pin
Relativity is Galilean, Classical Invariance!
:D
@@stevenstewart3414 But what would move them backwards? Tinier angels? Standing on what?
Science: can't find exotic dark matter.
Hold my beer! Invents exotic radiation.
Unruh radiation is predicted by general relativity.
Astronomy: Inventing physics as needed since 2000 BC.
@@Mosern1977 Yup thats a good one.
Difference being that QI seems to predict galaxy rotations without adjustments, where as dark matter must be sprinkled around and adjusted by physicists until it matches the galaxy rotation. Still, I chuckled :)
"Unruh radiation is predicted by general relativity."
Not in the form in which it's being used here. For starters, it doesn't exert pressure, so it can't affect inertia one way or the other.
I love to humor you using your videos... 👍 thanks for the information
this video was great, well done mr scott
When 2 EM fields collide, i.e., come to a rest, the energy of the fields convert into pairs of particles. See law of conservation, energy cannot be destroyed. Thus the energy of the two fields colliding does not cancel out or destroyed but instead is converted into pairs of particles, see pair production theory. The unruh horizon 'radiation' hypothesis appears to be another example of pair production theory, see rendered images of the bow shock along the sun's Heliosphere.
The casimir affect may have nothing to do with virtual particles but instead Fe in the metal may be causing a magnetic attraction between the two plates.
I do like the fringe hypothesis. I've did the math on the movement of stars and galaxies and found that their movement was not related to their mass at all. In fact the correlation I discovered was with their age. It appears the older a galaxy or star is the faster speeds they reach, at a near perfect acceleration rate of about 1 mi/h increase every 10,000 years. Evidence which supports the Fringe hypothesis, seeing how the fringe hypothesis does not rely on the amount of mass in the star or galaxy either.
@@Ali-gh7rj I agree. Gravity is not a force. Gravity is a reaction because of an action occurring in mass! The warping of space is a reaction for the same reason. The flow of time is a reaction to this action. The expansion of space is a reaction to this action. The effect pinned on dark matter is also a reaction to this action. None of those observations are caused by gravity. Instead one single action in the universe causes all of those observed reactions.
Thus gravity because it is a reaction and not an action cannot be measured at the quantum scale and also why general relativity cannot be linked to quantum mechanics.
@@Ali-gh7rj Science is such a religion that we funded a 5 billion dollar particle accelerator to disprove the Standard Model of Physics.
You have the right to speak, as well as the right to being a moron
Hey Joe, Would you be able to do a video on Perovskite Solar Cells?
I hear that they are quickly gaining efficiently and practically take a fraction of the energy and rare materials to create. The complication of building these cells could be described somewhere around a modern day version of making “stained glass”.
Boasting around %20 efficiency already in under 6 years and how cheap and easy they are to make, no wonder people are excited about them!
when I read your comment... it automatically played in my mind to the tune of "Hey Joe" by Jimi Hendrix ... xD
I am currently involved in research on that subject (at THE Ohio State University). While you are correct on the fact that said compounds show promise, more testing is necessary before it can be properly reported upon. I CAN say that Methylammonium Lead Halides (we studied CH3NH3Pb(X3); X being either I or Br), while exhibiting photovoltaic potential, degrade far quicker than silicon, an instability which is exacerbated in the presence of light and moisture. This is besides the fact that lead is a toxin.
Keenan Weind, thank you so much for the follow up comment. I hope I don’t misrepresent the research thats still needed to be done in this application or the challenges that it still faces in regards to viability.
I have just recently looked into these alternative solar formats.
On a side note: What do you know about the so-called “artificial photosynthesis”?
I hear that a university is experimenting with an “aspen leaf” like solar panel that can efficiently create hydrogen gas... which can easily be stored, pumped, and replenished.
If true, this may extend the useful life of internal combustion engines for some time... especially since there is very little harmful byproducts of burning hydrogen.
I don’t have a reference for the aspen leaf claim that I read some time ago, but as a quick reference, here’s a Wikipedia post (take with grain of salt... I haven’t fully read it.)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis
very entertaining yet informative, way to go young man :)
Great job! Very interesting topic, I'd love to see a follow up on it in a year or two. It
"I call it a Hawking Hole!"
...
Stephen Hawking, Futurama, season 2 episode 29
In the old west they called a spittoon
Chasing Amy. Yes. You’re my new fave, Joe. 🤷🏼♂️
Where? When? I totally missed it!
You nailed it. Keep it up !!!!!!
Love all the knowledge and laughs you provide. 👍
Calling it pseudoscience seems a bit harsh, it’s as pseudoscience as string theory. Theoretical physics is not pseudoscience. It may be wrong but it has at least been peer reviewed and is founded on mathematics, not whimsy. Love the channel but that was a cheap shot.
Exactly, he published over 20 papers about QI, most in good scientific peer-reviewed journals - so calling that pseudosience is very harsh.
The only reason I used that word was because I kept seeing it in the articles I read about it. Wasn't trying to take any kind of shot at it.
Joe Scott Yeah, but you’re better than that :) leave the gonzo stuff to the click baiters.
Joe Scott And actually it was a good opportunity to explain why it’s not pseudoscience despite what some articles claim. It could certainly be wrong (and I do think that theoretical physics does go out too far on a limb - string theory) - but it is at least mathematically sound which pseudoscience never is.
Do you realize how many times theories and even factual science has been wrong? Do you know science once approved of bleeding out as a medical procedure?
Did Mach write an autobiography titled “iMac”?
I read somewhere that he was a bit of an egotist and he called it "I am the Big Mach'.
In its original language the "ch" in Mach is pronounced like the "j" in "jalapeño", which kind of disables this joke
Mach rhymes with Bach, so stop "mach-ing" his name.
The kids call him daddy
@@francisboyle1739 & Tullius Agrippa: If so, his descendants can virtually print money! That's some lawsuits against Apple and McDonald's!
Stefan Skoda & Neo Humanist: Don't be spoilsports! Besides, Apple and McDee are American companies, and we all know Americans have no grasp of the voiceless velar fricative. Try any of that fancy-talk in a US court room, and the jury will get a good laugh!
Great video as usual Joe! I LOVE that shirt too!
Good topic for conversation.
U r not only hilarious but brilliant!!
I actually understand wat u were talking about.....okay kinda👍🤙😉
As a German, let me tell you that "Mach" is most definitely NOT pronounced as advocated in this video. That German "ch"-sound is just something English throats aren't usually able to do.
Also, Hawking Radiation *_from black holes_* has never been observed contrary to what this video implies. For actual stellar black holes (or larger ones), Hawking radiation would be too miniscule for observation even if it were as close to us as the moon. There was a lab-experiment related to Hawking radiation, but it wasn't really about black holes.
I should have been more specific about that. I was referring to the lab experiments.
@@joescott Also you did not pronounce McCulloch's name 100% correctly because 'ch' in his name is pronounced like 'ch' in Scottish word "Loch", which is actually similar to German or Austrian pronunciation of 'ch'.
Some of the English can pronounce that, some can't, same as some can roll the r, as in Spanish, and some cannot.
@@ExcelinusCom Germans don't spit when making that sound though. Plus, without a "th" we don't have to stick out our tongues to people to pronounce every other word. :-P
Just kidding, I actually like the English language ;-)
How English cannot pronounce Mach, or Bach, and yet they can pronounce Hawking?
I love how your humor is non-invasive 🙂
Awesome video, as usual 😊
Joe scot my fav science channel because hes my favrit
@@aVoidPiOver2Rad never herd of em
@Richard Vanwinkle Vsauce is dead bro except only when he uploads a video to the channel
@@amit4rou Why is it dead?
@@amit4rou thats true about any channel
@@cawfeedawg but that's less frequently true about Vsauce
Love the alter ego fact checker !
Keep him on ;]
You could use him to give you "fun" facts or semi-related interesting facts about your main subject.
It's an awesome idea, keep it up!
In the US, it's called "play-by-play" and "color". And it would be great!
He should also have a third dishelved guy making nonsense comments about his video...like some here . :)
Hey Joe, love your channel. Where did you get that T shirt ?
Super interesting, thank you!
Hawking radiation has been observed? That's news to me!
you"re too good love from india
Mr. Petrov and Mr. Scott ; two of my favorite personalities on You Tube. Hello, and good tidings to you both.
Hi Joe, I think now it might be time to make another video on this considering we are weeks away from a space based test.
Joe, I don’t know where you’re getting your information but Ernst Mach’s name is not pronounced mac as in the iMac, it’s pronounced “maak”
Except with a bit of a gagging noise at the end.
You won't touch a Rindler Horizon with a 10 foot pole, but would you touch it with a quantized pole?
Very interesting presentation. I was folding laundry and when you switch to yourself on your cell phone, I had to laugh. I really was paying attention though. I also know several people who would be on their phones ignoring you. Their loss. Again, awesome presentation. Thank you!
Excellent video!
Also "unruh" means "unquiet" in german. So it's the perfect name for some weird kind of quantum vacuum radiation!
Thank you for yet another awesome video. :-D
Such an interesting subject, and a real rabbit hole to jump down...
I've always had a big problem with the idea of "dark matter". To me it seemed too much like an added complication to fudge our lack of understanding of what's really going on. Rather like the Earth-centric model of the solar system prior to Copernicus - how to get planetary motion right with the Earth at the middle? Epicycles! But that's just a fudge that doesn't further our understanding of what's really going on, for a certain value of "really". Sounds a bit like dark mater, eh?
So "QI" could potentially solve that issue (along with many others) just like Copernicus did when he "rearranged" the solar system and improved our understanding... but then it all goes a bit runny:
Much to my own disappointment it seems "dark matter" really is a thing, that we don't understand, and not necessarily an artifact of our incomplete understanding.
eg: th-cam.com/video/_eS4fz2IoaE/w-d-xo.html
So:
It's worse than not having the understanding of how a thing works, we really don't have the faintest clue how to even identify that thing!
And:
By extension "QI" is probably wrong, for a given value of wrong, because one of it's primary predictions (no dark matter) falls down... *sigh* and so we are also, probably, no closer to understanding what inertia actually is!
Still, science would be very boring indeed if we had all the answers... and we'll probably be very wrong if we ever come to that conclusion.
PS
Here's some more fringe ideas:
Maybe the reason we can't bring relativity and quantum mechanics together is we are looking at the problem in the wrong way.
eg:
-Maybe the arrow of causality is in the opposite direction to the way we think it is. The universe isn't built up from the bottom but down from the top - think of a clay sculpture. You're pretty sure how it looks but the smaller the scale the harder it becomes to predict how the clay moves as you push it about. - Sound familiar?
-Maybe, highly disappointingly, the reason we haven't been able to put quantum mechanics together with relativity is because the latter has no intrinsic rules of it's own but is just a description of an emergent behavior based on the quantum realm? (eg: Langton's ant) That would be disappointing because there is no math that can predict specific emergent behaviors and so we'll never be able to bring the two theories together.
-Maybe string theory just doesn't go far enough. Rather than a universe with 11ish dimentions consider a universe with a functionally infinite number of tiny dimensions all in contact with each other. Now consider those dimensions as a continuum where those "closest to you" appear to have "size" and those "further away" have less "size". Say you perceive the "nearest" 3 or 4 as "space-time" and the further ones as relatively so small you perceive them as the fundamental building blocks of matter out of which everything seems to be made... building blocks that are all actually and permanently in contact? Now consider how that relates to quantum mechanics (*cough* entanglement for instance) and relativity, and how that may link the two. Bonus points: I wonder if there is a way to change your "perspective" as to which dimensions appear large and which appear small?
Sorry, I do like to ramble.
Hi Joe, what you said here about our atmosphere in regards to its air pressure being very specific, got me thinking, ultimately leaving me with a major dilemma. How is it possible to have a pressure system next to a vaccuum? I can't seem to work this out and, if I'm lucky, I'll see another awesome video of yours answering this question. On the other hand, a simple reply would be all I need if I may. Thanks joe or anyone else who cares to provide me w an answer.
I wish I would have had you as a high-school teacher. Your energy makes learning fun! I had a history and government teacher with a good sense of humor but not as good of a sense of humor 😂
Wait what? They observed Hawking Radiation? How? As far as I know it way to weak to discover it. So could you show a source?!
They probably didn't observe black holes in space. They probably observed it coming from kugoblitz black holes which can be formed in the Hadron Collider.
@@josephedmond3723 Well I also heaven't heard of this neither. At least it would be possible since (as stated before) the background radiation is too strong so we can't see Hawking Radiation in real live black holes. However I haven't heard they actually created one at CERN neither. As far as I understood it was just a possibility. Is this confirmed in any way? Or is it just a theoretical assumption. I know mathematically it seems correct but yet, "confirmed in 2010" (or what he said) seems a bit too optimistic.
"Observed" in a simulation.