They aren’t stars run by nuclear reactions but quantum effects are still the reason they are alive. I still consider them stars, because there aren’t unclear reactions happening in the entire regions of the star, but it’s all still part of the star.
I know this video was posted a long time ago, but I still hope you can help me, if you see this. I did everything in the video and I have all the data, but I don't know how to calculate the flux from the count. I'd be really grateful if you or anyone else could help me
The length of transit can vary depending on whether the planet crosses the star at the equator or grazes it at an offset from the equator. Hence, contrary to what is said in this video, the length of transit does not indicate the 'speed' of the star or its period. Otherwise a very good lecture.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. ----------------
At 50 years old im completely lost when the word evolution is used anymore. It seems to lose known data to use the word in physics. The gravity collapse of hydrogen nebula clouds of molecular gas under goes tremendous inertia mass pressure that eventually ignite atomic fission chain reactions within .. the expansion and burning of elements are detailed but its no evolution I've ever heard of
Ok, explain this to me please. I get at 13:00 you state they are standing still etc and I got a solid enough grasp on standard cosmology etc but recently something has been bothering me in the fact that if it were indeed an explosion, boom electromagnetic energy fired out at the speed of light, condensed to matter and due to gravity this matter condensed wouldn't we see exactly what we see now without all the mental gymnastics of dark energy and early Inflatons? As gravity slowed down the matter from expanding the further back in time we looked the faster things would expand and when we got close we would see gravity dominate as our local cluster is basically current events for all intents and purposes here. Can you explain why this is wrong because surely someone would have considered outward movement which slows over time meaning further away is expanding away faster. It would not move towards us faster as that is not what being inside of an explosion would be like.
19:00 Yeah see... I just need help making this make sense because it feels so convoluted to add all these other factors in yet IF the galaxies were not moving and it was simply space nothing should exist. Everything started in a density that was way beyond that of a blackhole as all our blackhole material now would have been far closer. I understand what I stated above in my initial question appears to suggest the same but I suppose such a thing could be hand waved away in the form of a phase change after the initial kick and the slowing down and condensation of energy into matter creates that gravity later one. I get Kugelblitz work but as far as I know no one has demonstrated gravitational effects from just photons alone have they? Why do we need expanding space here at all, I just don.t get it anymore? I thought I use to get it but the more I think about it and the deeper I get into this subject the less its making sense to me. I really am trying here but can you explain why this makes more sense than simply photons exploding outward chaotically as it begins to cool, condense and form structures, while still maintaining the initial velocity vector I might add as there would be nothing to slow it other than the action of gravity. Why is this wrong and expanding space not wrong and more importantly I suppose... What would really be the difference other than expanding space being far less intuitive and not follow our local observations of spacetime. PS: I know its getting ahead of myself here but wouldnt this also provide a means for the directionality of time especially if the initial expansion was at or faster than the speed of light? Everything in your light cone would be going forward and actually reaching C would simply mean you reached the frame of reference the initial explosion took place in. A river moving at the speed of Light your caught up in and to remain still you would have to move light speed. IDK, Shower thoughts type shit I suppose but sounds about right in my monkey brain
The problem with both models (Ptolemy and Copernicus) was that they both assumed that the orbits had to be circular. Now Copernicus was closer to the truth (heliocentric rather than geocentric), but the insistence on circular orbits (whether around the Sun or around an epicycle) led to unpredictable models. The truth was that the orbits were elliptical, not circular. However, the orbits ellipses were pretty close to being circular. It would have been interesting to see what they made of Pluto’s orbit, had that dwarf planet been visible enough to be observed. Its orbit is much less like a circle than any of the other planets.
Hey man, you need to respect your audience and not do that sort of very loud and saturating audio scratching with your microphone. Some of us listen with headphones and that's very uncool. unsubscribed
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity and Accelerated Expansion - 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravitation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void, Accelerated Expansion and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
Unsolving the mysterie of Dark Matter also known as Higgs Boson particle. There was one scientist that wanted to prove E=mc2 is missing something because the equation did not comply with his observation and logic. Why? There are multiple explanations of the formula. One is the equation to calculate the speed of light. One is the equation to the nuclear bomb and one is how the interstellar gravity between planets is established. Now you guess the rest 😉
The progenitor stars are rarer for the theoretically higher mass neutron stars, which might be why they haven't been observed... not because there's something wrong with the theory!
even southern europe is a lot further north than china and new mexico - the supernova was probably behind the sun on july 4th and yeah, we were probably too hungover from partying like it was 999 to notice even when it did appear. harold - there are two suns! yeah, that's why you're called ethelred the drunk - you see two of everything...
And still there are astrophysicists that say a neutron star only forms with stars that have a core mass of 1.4 to less than 3 solar masses, and an overall solar mass between 10 to 40 solar masses. And that black holes only form when the mass of the core is above 3 solar masses and the overall mass of the star is above 40 solar masses. Of course other astrophysicists also say different things. Some say that a star only has a 100% chance of becoming a black hole when the star has 60 solar masses and more. I've even seen astrophysicists say that the difference in mass between what is necessary to get a supernova and a collapstar is exactly the same, when most say it's not. So for the most part it seems that these numbers are more or less theoretical. At least when it comes to neutron stars and black holes. Because you can read 20 articles and the 20 will have different numbers.
Aloha Brian! Great work and presentation! New subscriber, and there should be many others soon! Can't wait to see if you have more vids. Thanks so much!
What if the size is the same, but the density increases? Such as the decay of plutonium in a closed container. So for observers outside our universe, the size would not increase, but he could observe that the number of elements and thus the density increases. As the density increases, the speed of light must also change, so it will become more and more slow.
Useful lecture. Is it you "Brian Gleim" or is the speaker Sean M. Carroll. I can't tell the difference.
Thanks for sharing this on UA-cam. I appreciate watching and learning here.
:( im still confused! 4:50
They aren’t stars run by nuclear reactions but quantum effects are still the reason they are alive. I still consider them stars, because there aren’t unclear reactions happening in the entire regions of the star, but it’s all still part of the star.
Thanks bro, Goated🔥🔥🔥
I know this video was posted a long time ago, but I still hope you can help me, if you see this. I did everything in the video and I have all the data, but I don't know how to calculate the flux from the count. I'd be really grateful if you or anyone else could help me
The length of transit can vary depending on whether the planet crosses the star at the equator or grazes it at an offset from the equator. Hence, contrary to what is said in this video, the length of transit does not indicate the 'speed' of the star or its period. Otherwise a very good lecture.
I just stumbled across this. Very well put together and easy to follow. I'm already looking forward to watching more of your content.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. ----------------
🤔🤔🤔😃👌💫
Outstanding reasoning 😊
At 50 years old im completely lost when the word evolution is used anymore. It seems to lose known data to use the word in physics. The gravity collapse of hydrogen nebula clouds of molecular gas under goes tremendous inertia mass pressure that eventually ignite atomic fission chain reactions within .. the expansion and burning of elements are detailed but its no evolution I've ever heard of
Just so you know, this is completely theoretical and not factual.
Ok, explain this to me please. I get at 13:00 you state they are standing still etc and I got a solid enough grasp on standard cosmology etc but recently something has been bothering me in the fact that if it were indeed an explosion, boom electromagnetic energy fired out at the speed of light, condensed to matter and due to gravity this matter condensed wouldn't we see exactly what we see now without all the mental gymnastics of dark energy and early Inflatons? As gravity slowed down the matter from expanding the further back in time we looked the faster things would expand and when we got close we would see gravity dominate as our local cluster is basically current events for all intents and purposes here. Can you explain why this is wrong because surely someone would have considered outward movement which slows over time meaning further away is expanding away faster. It would not move towards us faster as that is not what being inside of an explosion would be like.
19:00 Yeah see... I just need help making this make sense because it feels so convoluted to add all these other factors in yet IF the galaxies were not moving and it was simply space nothing should exist. Everything started in a density that was way beyond that of a blackhole as all our blackhole material now would have been far closer. I understand what I stated above in my initial question appears to suggest the same but I suppose such a thing could be hand waved away in the form of a phase change after the initial kick and the slowing down and condensation of energy into matter creates that gravity later one. I get Kugelblitz work but as far as I know no one has demonstrated gravitational effects from just photons alone have they? Why do we need expanding space here at all, I just don.t get it anymore? I thought I use to get it but the more I think about it and the deeper I get into this subject the less its making sense to me. I really am trying here but can you explain why this makes more sense than simply photons exploding outward chaotically as it begins to cool, condense and form structures, while still maintaining the initial velocity vector I might add as there would be nothing to slow it other than the action of gravity. Why is this wrong and expanding space not wrong and more importantly I suppose... What would really be the difference other than expanding space being far less intuitive and not follow our local observations of spacetime. PS: I know its getting ahead of myself here but wouldnt this also provide a means for the directionality of time especially if the initial expansion was at or faster than the speed of light? Everything in your light cone would be going forward and actually reaching C would simply mean you reached the frame of reference the initial explosion took place in. A river moving at the speed of Light your caught up in and to remain still you would have to move light speed. IDK, Shower thoughts type shit I suppose but sounds about right in my monkey brain
Great video. I hope you have made more such...
NS and BH are far, far from graveyards. BH contain most of the universal entropy.
Copernicus: "Occam's razor." (mic drop)
The problem with both models (Ptolemy and Copernicus) was that they both assumed that the orbits had to be circular. Now Copernicus was closer to the truth (heliocentric rather than geocentric), but the insistence on circular orbits (whether around the Sun or around an epicycle) led to unpredictable models. The truth was that the orbits were elliptical, not circular. However, the orbits ellipses were pretty close to being circular. It would have been interesting to see what they made of Pluto’s orbit, had that dwarf planet been visible enough to be observed. Its orbit is much less like a circle than any of the other planets.
The earth is flat and stationary, space is fake. Those lights aren’t distant stars👀
if Sean Carrol isn't available for narration of a project, you would be a great substitute.
Good video. Warning: high noise at 15min, 16min, 17min and 20min.
so a photon with a wavelengy < the plank length is impossible?
Hey man, you need to respect your audience and not do that sort of very loud and saturating audio scratching with your microphone. Some of us listen with headphones and that's very uncool. unsubscribed
Great content!
I don't believe that WIMPs are considered to interact via the weak force.
Thanks! Good explanation indeed. Which means you know the stuff.
FIRST LIKE! :D
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity and Accelerated Expansion - 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravitation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void, Accelerated Expansion and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
Unsolving the mysterie of Dark Matter also known as Higgs Boson particle. There was one scientist that wanted to prove E=mc2 is missing something because the equation did not comply with his observation and logic. Why? There are multiple explanations of the formula. One is the equation to calculate the speed of light. One is the equation to the nuclear bomb and one is how the interstellar gravity between planets is established. Now you guess the rest 😉
The progenitor stars are rarer for the theoretically higher mass neutron stars, which might be why they haven't been observed... not because there's something wrong with the theory!
BRIAN-you should do some re-uploads and retittle some of these with the recent interest in Betelgeuse.
also, i'm not convinced about the chaco canyon thing. it's far more likely to mean: this was rock was carved out by the night shift....
even southern europe is a lot further north than china and new mexico - the supernova was probably behind the sun on july 4th and yeah, we were probably too hungover from partying like it was 999 to notice even when it did appear. harold - there are two suns! yeah, that's why you're called ethelred the drunk - you see two of everything...
Rrew
Thanks Brian much love. Been feeling a lil “low mass” recently but it’s mostly because I don’t know how to feed myself.
Thank you so much for this!
I dee these videos before sleep 😴 They help me go 💤 💤😴 Good video though Thankss
It was good video
And still there are astrophysicists that say a neutron star only forms with stars that have a core mass of 1.4 to less than 3 solar masses, and an overall solar mass between 10 to 40 solar masses. And that black holes only form when the mass of the core is above 3 solar masses and the overall mass of the star is above 40 solar masses. Of course other astrophysicists also say different things. Some say that a star only has a 100% chance of becoming a black hole when the star has 60 solar masses and more. I've even seen astrophysicists say that the difference in mass between what is necessary to get a supernova and a collapstar is exactly the same, when most say it's not. So for the most part it seems that these numbers are more or less theoretical. At least when it comes to neutron stars and black holes. Because you can read 20 articles and the 20 will have different numbers.
Hallo I am Ehap from Egypt Can you call me pleease sir
It's so that that this video didn't blow up
Can you please share a link to the Gaia Catalog? I'm looking online but not sure if I am finding the right source for it.
This video is very helpful for my paper I am writing thx
That is the single best full description of high mass stellar life cycle I have seen to date... Bravo sir! 👏
Aloha Brian! Great work and presentation! New subscriber, and there should be many others soon! Can't wait to see if you have more vids. Thanks so much!
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation.
This is the 5th video I have watched including the video included with my online course and you are the only one who made sense to me. THANK YOU.
This was awesome, thank a lot!
I cant say how grateful Iam for this :)
What if the size is the same, but the density increases? Such as the decay of plutonium in a closed container. So for observers outside our universe, the size would not increase, but he could observe that the number of elements and thus the density increases. As the density increases, the speed of light must also change, so it will become more and more slow.
ASTRONOMY WOOOOOOOOOOOOO