Dark Energy, or Worse: Was Einstein Wrong?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- In this National Science Foundation program, Sean Carroll, a senior research associate at the California Institute of Technology, sheds light into the "dark side" of the universe that may actually be the key to unlocking the mystery that is the universe. The type of matter we're familiar with and encounter everyday - atoms and molecules - only makes up about 5 percent of the universe. The remaining 95 percent is believed to be dark matter and dark energy. Explore the history of dark energy and dark matter by following Einstein's path to uncovering the theory that sparked a change in the world of astrophysics and the controversies behind that theory.
I have watched many many science-oriented videos on UA-cam, and Sean Carroll has the best delivery.
+LindaStevensBZ Yes. He organizes his presentations well and he's one of the very few who have so much confidence, energy and enthusiasm that their presentations of sophisticated material are as entertaining as they are informative.
Definitely.
Yes. I like both he and Copeland
yeah he's amazing, would love to meet him. i wish he had the popularity of ND Tyson.
He is good but i strongly recommend you to watch Wal Thornhill and other electric universe scientists on their youtube channel. (thunderbolts project)
WOW! As an engineering student in college about 25 years ago with an introductory course in quantum mechanics, this talk was invaluable to my understanding of the reasoning for dark matter/dark energy over just tinkering of classical/gen. relativity for large scale observed gravitational deviations. A double entendre, I think ;-). A super concise talk by a very good speaker, a smidge above the layman, but not so bogged down in math to be painful for someone at my level (slightly above coffee table talk), with a reference for further study. Highly recommended for a first toe-dip into dark matter/energy. If you want just the very quick observational argument for DM/DE start at 35:40 through to about thirty nine thirteen, if this doesn't wet your whistle, so to speak, I don't know what will.
Carolin Crawford's astronomy lectures are awesome too, for anyone interested
Her's is more recent. 😄
It must be pride that did not let moderation and humility kick in and prevent scientist made fool of themselves.
I have questions. How can gravity move at the speed of light and how can light be the fastest way to transmit information. Take the Sun and Earth, it takes 7-8 mins. for light from the Sun to reach Earth so if light was the fastest way to transmit information then the Earth is not moving where the Sun is now but where the Sun was 7-8 mins ago and wouldn't that slingshot the Earth and other planets out if that was true? Also wasn't gravity instant when Newton made his theory and if light isn't the fastest way to transmit information doesn't that really hurt Albert's theory since a big chunk of it is all about how light is the fastest way to transmit information?
todd joseph take a look at how Hub drew a straight line through the scatter plot. Perhaps you might consider gravity as a force rather than some thing that travels. (A feature of space-time itself). I love the way you are thinking.
Actually the balloon analogy helped me to finally understand expansion. It was pretty clear that it wasn't expanding into anything, but it was crystal clear why everyone seems to be at the center of the expansion. Raisin bread did confuse me.
I'm surprised they had to put up a disclaimer 4 Sean Carroll. It's definitely not necessary. If anything they should be saying they hope their views reflect the opinion of Sean Carroll.
+John Morris: Maybe its just a matter of form but it does seem gratuitous and insulting. It's not as though Professor Carroll might be some sort of crackpot.
John Morris ...that disclaimer one sees ("the opinions expressed in this program do not NECESSARILY reflect those of ____") is not something put up because of anything "controversial" or due to "heterodoxy". This is a typical, often used disclaimer, usually tagged on at the end of these kinds of talks to indicate to viewers that Mr X or Ms Y is not representing whatever medium on which it airs. It does not represent any kind of judgment by the channel or hosting university or foundation, etc. This is just a way to let viewers/listeners know that the speaker is putting forth his own views. It doesn't mean that no one in that outfit wouldn't agree w/him or her.
It's just a legal formality. Nothing personal.
NSF gets money from congress. Congress is made up of individuals that advocate creationism. Any serious discussion of cosmology will take the big bang as a given. So either we get a disclaimer or someone will aim for a seat on the science committee to shut crackpots like Carroll up. I mean, obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't quote scripture once!
They must believe in the Copenhagen interpretation kek
Janitor at prestigious university discovers the answer to the energy problem while vacuuming. Vacuum energy, and he is rewarded with a brand new vacuum cleaner !
I just wanted to say i like the way Sean Carrol explains things.
Presentation 'actor'
Martin: You like the well-rehearsed atheist explanation.
He's such a great lecturer that it kinda pisses me off, in a mostly-joking way.
I can't get past that he sounds almost the same as Alan Alda myself.
medexamtoolsdotcom
His wife probably tutored him.
She’s probably gunna hit on me.
Maybe dark matter is just dust bunnies made mostly of cat hair. That's what happens at my house.
Armchair cosmologists in the comments section who never studied any physics or astronomy: you cannot learn what you think you know
Hi Wee Wee, That's a bit of a wild comment. I have met many armchair scientists who manage to hold their own in technical conversations and sometimes contribute valid data. I would think those comments should be directed to the modern cosmologists who look us all in the face and tell us there is only 5% of expected matter in the universe, now If you purchased a 10 foot length of 2x4 wood and the vendor gave you a 6" piece and charged you for 10' then you would have something to say, but when modern cosmologists tell us there is only 5% of matter in the universe the world accepts it. To my mind an error of 95% tells me something is very, very wrong and more research is needed , but no we are then told that the missing matter is "DARK MATTER" that cannot be seen , cannot be detected . O How convenient and how unbelievable. A more believable answer is that the missing matter is occluded by other stars. Just one close star would occlud a cone of space which gets bigger the farther you go out. It may not be the answer but It would go part way to answering the huge loss of matter. Another part answer is that gravity lensing is far more widespread than we think and many ,many, pure images are in evidence and represent nothing but would look,like real stars but are in reality just the universes cinema.
regards MoK
Mo King *You cannot learn what you think you know*
Dark matter is real and it can be measured and we know a lot about it. At least we'd know a lot about it if we wanted to.
Matter interacts very strongly with dark matter and we literally see dark matter doing what it does every day...even right this instant as you read this.
What's now called, "dark matter" is what used to be called, "the aether". at least back before the physics geniuses dismissed the aether as not existing.
The reason we can't see dark matter is the same reason we can't see the air around us. It appears invisible but it's there. If you understand why you cannot see the air, it goes a long way to explaining why you can't see dark matter.
"You cannot learn what you think you know"
you do understand that this cuts both ways right? armchairs and ivory towers notwithstanding.
Kevin T I'm just advocating formal education over homespun ideas
He has cultivated and perfected such such a rich and engaging style - it really does not matter what he says. Just ask him.
Call it dark knowledge since dark matter or energy has never been proven.
Actually they have been proven. The Universe is expanding and accelerating, that requires energy. It's called dark energy because we don't know much more about it. Galaxies have been observed that require more than the mass of the visible matter to explain them. We also have gravitational lensing examples, images of which you can look up and see, that require much more mass than is visible. It's called dark matter, again dark because we don't know much more about it. But both are proven to exist.
They are only proven to exists if you assume that GR is indeed true. If you look from a slightly different point of view you could say that GR must be incomplete because it requires a bodge in form of dark energy and matter to make it work in large scale.
You could say that - but you would be wrong.
@@onemaninaboat MOND is on the way out.
Agree!
FYI ligo actually has found slight variations from gravitational waves caused by colliding black holes which may indicate relativity breaking down for the first time but more data is needed and reproducing the observations by other astronomers
thanks for this, helped me find the paper. For anyone looking it's here
arxiv.org/abs/1612.00266
It's really not acceptable that these people present their best guesses as scientific fact.
Alex: And it's really not acceptable that these atheists get together for a circle-jerk explanation of the random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as stated by Sherlock Holmes. That is to say, if the God idea cannot hold water as a scientific explanation (e.g. the age of the Earth, in the case of the biblical one), the truth must be in one of the possibilities that remain. I know, "a random, coincidental, and purposeless Universe" is a scary idea. I used to subscribe to the God idea.
@@Rocksite1 Atheists say the stupidest shit. I AM not scared of anything especially false information promoted by clueless militant atheists.
See 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce that. GOD=7_4 Theory provides exhaustive evidence of GOD & God-incarnate - GOD704.wikia.com . Please read that and let me know exactly what data you have a problem with.
@@BradWatsonMiami Why is it not acceptable for a group of people to get together to share a common viewpoint? Does that not sound a lot like church? If you're gonna say this is not acceptable, you need to be fair on both sides. Why is this meeting a "circle-jerk" and church isn't? How is this false information? Why are you labeling atheists "militants"? I'd wager they're the least "militant" type of people out there. Have you ever heard of atheists starting war, chopping heads off, going on shooting sprees. I know I haven't, can't say the same for people following a religion.
Yes, without the humility of at least conceding it is your best guess as we would in discussion of these matters.
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. Some others around here seem to have the balance all wrong. Stick with your ideas. You have support in the right places.
Why is it that the deepest intellectual topics always attract the stupidest comments?
Religion.
lazychimp123
I'm guessing you're right.
They keep telling me that if I had so much faith as a grain of mustard seed that I could move mountains, but I have yet to have them tell me how much faith it takes to raise the temp of a cc of water by a single degree.
*****
hmmm so as faith approaches its maximum, it will always be proportional to any arbitrary amount of force minus a "not quite enough" constant... Interesting.
I'm going to go unplug my toaster and have faith that unless an electrical current flows through the heating elements that it can't make toast.
Everyone should probably seek shelter in their basement. Dividing by zero is a messy business.
LOL
*****
Odd... this posting of yours was marked as spam.
I don't see anything remotely spammy about it.
YT is strange.
*****
Took a look at the linked video and I'm not sure I'd call it mediocre exactly. It's what I think of as an interest provoking popular science vid... for people who aren't allergic to science but aren't actually equipped with the tools to dive right in.
Jason though looks like he's bypassed barking mad and gone right to full metal straightjacket material.
Yeah, that's kinda what I've been leaning toward as well. We humans really overestimate the abilities of our sensory technology. "Dark energy" is a weak explanation for the alleged "acceleration in the expansion of the universe."
No, there is no such thing as "dark matter". Yes, Einstein was wrong.
Next question?
Actually, the evidence for dark matter is better than the evidence for a creation event. Or galactic expansion.
The dark matter hypothesis cam as the result of direct observation not fitting theory, though it is far less mysterious than most media would have someone believe. By dark, people just mean, non-emitting. A vast cloud of interstellar neutrons would fit the bill if they had a different decay rate in intergalactic space. They might...we can't test it. We have no reason to think they do, but we don't know for sure.
And what does this have to do with Einstein? Oh, maybe the GR equations are wrong? Sure. But that just means that everything else we have to work with is even more wrong. And Newtonian Gravity and QM are straight out. The entire adventure of calculus and computers was just ego stroking (only locally relevant self entertainment).
Sure let's go with that. Why are you using that computer again? I don't mean offense, I'm just confused by your apparent logic.
David T So you believe in the "dark" side.... Very well, but it isn't scientific.
earlysda Isn't scientific? How so?
To paraphrase astronomers:
[
Hypothesis: galaxies follow basic orbital laws.
Observations: galaxies mostly follow basic orbital laws, but not quite.
Calculation: back calculate (curve fit) what would cause the deviation from orbital laws, based on the physics we already know.
(Translate results to English and our new, adjusted...)
Hypothesis: galaxies follow orbital laws, except in the outer/fringe regions where there is apparently something behaving like additional mass (i.e. matter) adjusting the outer galaxy's orbital motion. We can't see it in any part of the optical spectrum so it must be dark (by definition; since it is not lit up...).
Since that is a bit of a mouthful, we'll say, "standard orbital motion, plus dark matter."
Hey, is anyone listening? Guys? I know we're astronomers and not astrophysicists, but come on! This is interesting. NO! We are not doing our math badly! No we won't shut up. yes it makes things more complicated! No it is definitely not going away.
Fine. We'll start our own conferences where it is OK to talk about things in the universe that don't follow the simple rules that describe all you want there to be.
]
Many years later...physicists say,
[
Whoa! The Hubble constant came out wrong. And it's more wrong the better our data gets. We need to fix the math.
What do we already have? Nothing?
Um...the astronomers have been talking about "dark matter" for a few decades now...maybe that would solve the problem!
It helps! We're keeping it...but it is not enough!
]
Now the physicists are desperate:
[
Well, if we can't fit any more dark matter in our models without everything turning into a very different party, what are our other options?
Well,as far as we can tell, the universe is made up of two basic and interacting things: there's matter, and there's energy. And we've already covered the matter part.
So I guess it is dark, because we can't see it, and energy, because it is not matter.
Hey! Einstein talked about this in his big blunder, the Cosmological Constant. It is an energy term! Maybe he was smarter than we even thought he was! Let's resurrect it and throw it at the new problem. It seems promising!
Phew! OK, Dark Energy it is then. And sound confident about it!
]
So my opinion is not so much about belief. To me it about there being something not quite right in the combination of our physics theory and observation. Part of the error is in the matter part of the calculations, either we're putting in the wrong numbers for the total matter because we can't see it (dark matter), or we are somehow misrepresenting the matter that is there because we can't see the error itself (a dark component to matter). Either way, there is something dark (unseen) and matter oriented (just saying "matter" is still shorter). Don't much care how it goes in the end, I just think it's a valuable conversation to be having, so I'm participating in it.
And trying to keep people honest (especially when they aren't trying to be dishonest, because that demonstrates that they are confused) while I'm at it. Otherwise we'll all quickly get confused about what we're talking about.
And yes, the dark matter observations are better--in that they better confirm strange behavior--than the details about the big bang. Even if only because the description of the latter hinges upon the details of the former in the current discussion. But also because the research has been ongoing for quite some time and the conversation, and theory, is well developed without any reference to the big bang.
David T It's never been observed outside of a mathematical equation.
Actually, it's fascinating you should say that. I had the same opinion until just recently.
However, analysis of observational data from 2012 have demonstrated a columnar lensing effect from open space, implying that, at least in this case, there is a column of non luminescent matter strung between galaxies. Just as predicted!
I just read about it the other day!
Experiments show how conversion of matter into energy through its antimatter brings about gamma rays with exact opposite momentum.
Sean Carroll is absolute beast mode; this presentation is incredible.
Love the 80s style screen graphics and muzak. Rock on, national science money bundle.
Yup, they spend every cent they have to make it as good as they can, for us.
Sean Carrol sounds like John Lovitz, but he is not very funny
S.C is comfortable with not knowing, he is honest about it, which allows him greater understanding.
I admire the courage he has to maintain his integrity. Many in his field of study become become self-conscious about saying, "I don't know" as if they're not human beings.
The question is greater than the answer, more exciting, alluring, mysterious, inspiring, thrilling, captivating, fascinating, the never ending fuel for the journey of a lifetime and beyond.
There is a pie chart made of cheesecake topped with strawberry, raspberry, blueberry, thimbleberries and whatnotberries, in an unknown corner of the Universe laying out the various probabilities of what constitutes the dark matter of the Universe.
Since you cannot disprove that what I just wrote, it must be true.
Hint?
Fun way to put it...though you forgot the cinnamon.
A pie like that has gotta have some spice...
+Cynthia Avishegnath What, exactly, is your point? Just humor?
``Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.``
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Cynthia Avishegnath no serious physicists claims dark matter is truth
i agree, that any law that just says a "force" exists, or that the universe "bends" without explaining it further, is not complete. That is like saying the wind blowing through your window is a "force" and not knowing or explaining that is composed of gases that move around in our atmosphere.
Einstein wrote his "Principle of Equivalence", which was complete bunkum. The gradient of a gravitational force can very easily be measured with a present day gravimeter (geophysical instrument) that can discern the difference in centimeters of height! Such a difference does not exist in a accelerated movement.
I understand about 50%, but liked this talk a lot. What a wonderful time to be alive and curious.
"All of the energy and all of the matter that has existed still exists. Matter does not
create energy of itself. It is the actions of matter that enable the manifestation of energy".
13:55
"Well, the way you explain it is something we call the 'Dark Energy'. It it is the simplest possible explanation."
I would love to hear the convoluted ones...
There's one about intrinsic instabilities in the dynamic space-time framework inducing a spatial entropy-like effect. From a certain perspective it's actually a bit simpler, as it doesn't require an anomalous spontaneous universal energy term.
Or you could believe in negative signs.
Or you could believe in the QM vacuum pressure and modify the calibration to fit the data.
Or some combination. Combinations are always more complicated.
Try reading the comments on virtually any YT video covering dark matter, dark energy or any even moderately cutting edge and/or controversial science topic. You'll find some astonishingly convoluted explanations, from angels, to the electric universe, to gigantic conspiracies on the part of millions of scientists from just about every nation and organisation to keep the sheeple in line and fund their yachts-and-hookers lifestyle. Turns out particle physicists really get all the action, who knew?
"Spherical Standing Wave-Front Structure's Concentrically layered like onion's." And where the two IN+/-Out Wave-Front's meet creates the particle effect. As the high wave amplitude wave-center go's through one slit, its pilot wave go's through the other. Time is inverse: multiplying+/-dividing or frequency and wavelength. When we turn on the detector, we add energy multiplying time forming only bands on the screen. But when we turn off the detector, time keeps dividing an interference pattern.
I am not a physicisist but here's my best shot at answering your question: Using GR (general relativity), galaxies require extra mass, otherwise they wouldn't clump together like they do. Just how much mass? Well, about five times more than what is observed. Likewise, using GR, the universe's accellerating expansion, requires a cosmological constant (dark energy) which counters gravitational attraction and it can be assigned a specific magnitude based on GR. In short, it's in the math.
A thought: dark energy, dark matter... basic questions.
The universe expanding... basic questions.
Hmmm...
Are they related?
Do we look for answers to each, only to find they are related?
We should not look for answers when some answers may be laying right in front of us.
We can and do examine it, Sally. But we can only do it through interactions it participates in with our instruments. Unfortunately, these do not include the electromagnetic interaction, so we can't see light reflected from it. But we see it very clearly by its gravitational interaction with other matter that we can see. When we look at the motion and gravitational lensing effects (due to extreme spacetime warping) near large matter clusters, the visible mass is far too small to account for it.
That would be an interesting test to do. If mass can be created by running a current through a wire and the entire system gains mass then that would be really cool.
On monday mornings my coffee always smells a little like my secretary' hairspray.
I suspect there is some dark energy involved in this phenomenon.
The name fits the comment .
His comment is as concise as that guys 'lecture.'
its nice to see someone questioning relativity.
the photon may just be a tool for QM equations. "By using a single photon, the team played on a strange property of light: quantum mechanical theory holds that while light is emitted as discrete particles called photons, it can also be thought of as a wave.
As a wave, the light passed through all parts of the stencil at once, carrying the ‘shadow’ of the UR with it. The photon then entered a 10 cm long tube filled with cesium gas heated to 100° Celsius, where it was slowed and compressed."
Dirac speculated that cT=R is the radus (size) of the observable universe; R is the reciprocal of Hubble's constant. The divisor is the classical radius (size) of the electron, e2/mc2.
Now youtube is showing me videos from 2008 with Sean Carroll, a name I hadn't ever even heard of until like 2 months ago. And now he's everywhere, all through history or something.
Maybe he's a time traveler.
@@medexamtoolscom No, the YT algorithm is just like that
1) The physicists say that dark energy is uniform throughout space. However, this means that gravitational lenses have no effect on the density of dark energy.
2) How can dark energy be allowed to manipulate space yet not be able to be manipulated by space?
3) Does dark energy consist of particles? If so, then how do they travel?
4) If dark energy does not consist of particles, does it consist of waves?
5) If dark energy consists of neither particles nor waves, how does it occupy space?
To quote Professor Carroll, "Everything is Waves".
It's always heartwarming to see that people deny the fact that someone can be religious and yet interested in science at the same time. Truly the most amazing thing about humanity is our conservatism and plight to destroy ourselves in whatever we try to realise. I for one suggest we just all start going suicidal and stop ourselves from growing any smarter, and in said action, hope to leave behind unscholared children, setting us back to cavemen.
No one can deny the two so-called competing visions have brought us to our current technological civilization that is trying to avoid self-destruction. Yet no one can deny that the keepers are principally engaged in finding and proving how the universe started off. They have shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions to resolve the contradictions and conflicts they created in science. Science is in crisis over its meanings because the keepers are entangled with creation.
I'm still not clear on how you make dark matter disappear. Can you be more specific?
One of the lines of evidence is in the rotation of spiral galaxies. The visible galaxy acts as if it is part of a bigger disc. That is, the velocity of the outer edge stars are moving too fast in relation to the center to be accounted for by just the mass of the visible matter in that galaxy.
It is wrong to infer there is matter there that cannot be seen? Why?
A very good lecture from Sean Carroll. Considering that the lecture is around 4 years old now, It has stood the test of time. In fact, the amount of 'real' matter estimate is now down to around 4% of the total! Idea: we know much of the matter in the very early universe was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. But thermodynamic law would seem to suggest that this energy would be conserved somehow. Is this the 'Dark Energy'?
Maybe 10^120 is the biggest discrepancy in physics, but in mathematics, Graham's number was invented to provide an estimate of an upper bound of the dimensionality of a hypercube whose diagonals are arbitrarily colored that necessarily contains a slice of 4 corners all in the same plane forming a square, that has all 4 sides and all 4 diagonals the same color. And all is known is that it's more than 12, but less than Graham's number. So math has physics totally beat in "worst approximation". The reality is unknown though, so it is not known exactly how bad an approximation Graham's number actually is though.
Man...this guy is super smart.
@ Quentin Browne... Yep. As smart as his always pathetically inept *UA-cam comments* critics of note are dumb, or dishonest and ill-motivated. And that's *really* smart.
I'm not a scientist or a physics graduate, but I love this stuff. As an interested layman I'm only able to ask layman's questions... so here goes (please forgive my ignorance) If we were somehow able to travel instantly to a galaxy on the edge of the observable Universe, say 12-13 billion light years away, would we then see roughly 95% of other galaxies in the direction from which we just came? Or would we still see an even spread of galaxies whichever direction we pointed our instruments?
I think the proper question is: Did he fudge it on purpose? He got Relativity which shows there is no single way of viewing any given proposition, but somehow the concept didn't get extended adequately, and so all his fantastically complex equations are not kept symmetrical in time. Had he dealt fully with Time and the phase shifting of spacetime dimensions, it would've pointed out problems with the 2nd Lie of Thermodienomics, and then he would've been in dutch.
The space-time closer to the centre would be "faster" but appear the about same speed due to the -time bit of space-time doing its thing. More important is the overall effects of gravity in the cosmos. It is far more fluid and its -time effects are always overlooked. You could prove/disprove the disputed moon landing using the exact time delay in data link , but only if you allowed for the tiny effects of Earths rotational mass, the sun, and the moon's own pull etc.
how would you know that observers in other galaxies will also observe galaxies moving away from them?
I think of them more as "place holders". For example, that which has mass, has gravity. If we see the effects of gravity on visible matter but the visible matter cannot account for the gravitational effects observed, then invisible matter (matter we cannot currently detect using current tech/methods) would be the next best candidate.
The Big bang never happened because instead redshift with distance is a consequence of the limited range of overlapping spherical in+/-out wave's, forming wave-center's within every observable spherical region of the infinite universe.
Thus, less wave interaction, less energy exchange and Doppler causes a redshift.
Each wave-center formed by Huygen's combination in-wave's from other wave-center's spherically distributed around it, forming+/-breaking the imperfect symmetry you observe in Nature
Basically: if we are to solve the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy, we need to modify our theory/theories on gravity on a different scale? Is there a theory of gravity for microscopic scale, theory of gravity for mesoscopic scale, and theory of gravity for macroscopic scale? Gravity is the only property that links all things in our universe (or multiverse?)...so that must be the key to understanding the remaining mysteries of our universe/multiverse.
I find it difficult to understand why the universe is expanding because galaxies are moving further apart. It's a bit like saying the ocean is expanding because two ships move further away from each other. I think the universe both infintely massive & infinitely miniscule compared to us as a reference point.
so ice to see the little wifey standing next to her husband admiring every work and laughing on que
It makes sense to me, that empty space is in a vacuum state. Empty space is infinate so it can accommodate the constant expansion of the universe and can also be creating room for constant ongoing creation in the universe. The Dark Energy gravitation being detected could well be the vacuum pulling in empty space. This could also explain the overall higher volume of gravitational force. Could this be possible?
Thats interesting. I believe the redshift with distance is a consequence of the limited range of overlapping spherical In+/-out wave's, forming wave-center's within every observable spherical region of the Infinite Universe. Thus less wave-interaction, less energy exchange and Doppler causes a redshift.
videographer:The speaker's slides are more important than his persona. Pls display the slides more often and more prominently. The best solution is to collaborate with the speaker to accomodate an inset view of him talking in the corner of his slides.
Otherwise, thanks for an interesting talk - the sound quality was excellent!
a light photon is then an energy point on a wave of DE particles, which is why in the double slit experiment it behaves like both a particle and a wave.
The Sagnac experiment really proves that the speed of light is not invariant c. The relativistic derivation produced to show that the Sagnac effect is in fact relativistic is nothing but a crafty mathematical trick. Houdini style.
The detector fires photons!. In order for electron energy transfer to appear to be a 'particle' at a point, electron waves must propagate non-linearly at the central region. This produces the coupling between two resonances that allows energy transfer. We see eXpanding ripples, observing this process and call it "charge."
Thus density of waves of an electron, inside a observable radius from the wave-center, must be equal or larger than density of background waves from observable universe R=c/H.
Please no hate mail, but what if the big bang as we know it was simple cell division, from one universe to two. what if, as in cell division, our universe and all of the matter in it was nothing but what you find in it like a super massive black hole at the center was the nucleus and all of the rest of the "stuff" was just all of the "stuff" found in any cell, which would make us some particle so small we have not found it, yet. remember no hate mail, thanks for your time Clyde
+Clyde Castleberry Or our universe is just some fundamental particle of another universe? Or we're just some super advanced high school students simulation project. Fun to contemplate, huh?
+Clyde Castleberry This is the kind of "contemplation" that people without enough education in the field do after a few bottles of beer or stiff tokes on a joint. It's *always* wrong.
What predictions could you make from that starting assumption?
I want to join the Toastmaster group that Sean belongs to. Oh, and also the Dark Energy Task Force, that sounds like fun. Amazing lecture.
Good post. I like that 'Nature doesn't care what you or I find unbelievable' which echoes Richard Feynman's views on nature. A vacuum is merely an absence of air. The airless spaces are simply seething with activity - easily proved.
The Dark Energy or Dark Matter hypotheses are not necessary if we are willing to abandon the idea of expansion. The reality is that the so-called two competing visions, the two conventional frameworks of approach are two faces of the same thing, they both uphold a time-dependent universe. This implies creation. Only the keepers of the old and obsolete conventional tools are stuck because they cannot cut their links to the traditional old ways. The keepers are entangled with creation.
So, if the gravitational field tensive force exceeded the cosmological stress limit, then the gravitational field would snap or break-up, and let the outskirt of the universe continue expanding and accelerating. However, this cosmological limit may possibly exist only within measurable astronomical distances, depending upon the amount of matter involved in the process. So, if and only if this assumption is true, then scientists need not to worry anymore about dark energy and dark matter.
Sean has been quiet bold in his statements and he does with so much pizzas.After all he is a theoretical physicist and a good one too. How fortunate to have such a lecturer !
It's widely known we we can only test a small fragment of this spectrum, each react differently,we should try to unify those characteristics . ?
We know how large the observable universe is, and that's all we mean when we talk about the number of galaxies.
Also, when we talk about the 'correctness' of theories, we mean their numerical agreement with experimental predictions, which Einstein got spot on. After all, what is closer to truth than that? Certainly not some vague, mystical religious hypothesis.
How can a particle go through both slits in a two slit experiment? And what collapses the wave-function? And what causes the interference pattern when the detector is turned off? When we turn the detector back on, forms only bands, why?
This idea has been put forward as a serious theory. The problem with a new universe 'bouncing back' though, is entropy. Entropy stays the same or increases. So any new universe would be much more short-lived and would reach the point where insufficient mass would be available for any new 'bounce'
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Albert Einstein 1920
"Yes, but they are spatially extended, and thats why you can see them! We only see the eXpansion from the high wave amplitude wave center, at the moment of emission and have been deluded into thinking matter was made of tiny little particles. The electromagnetic spectum is a continuous flow of energy. Therefore light is a wave, and it is time that is quatized. Spacetime is quantized into moments, only the frequency is relative at each moment of time." Life is compression+/-eXpansion is Death."
Man Sean is such a good speaker
I never realized cosmology and physics was in such disarray; I hope I don't die before we figure this out.
@ uber hikari... *No* , this is the 180° OPPOSITE of "disarray". This is about the scientific PROCESS in determined action at its very finest, facing up forthrightly to ALL of the data and making steady progress forward!
And BTW, uber hikari, the *politically* (religiously) motivated critics within this comments section represent the *antithesis* of all the virtues that I identified in paragraph one. Without exception, the sorts of would-be damning [sic] critiques you see *here* are characteristically mendacious, ill-motivated, and without substance, coming from a collective pack of mostly effective illiterates in the pertinent physical sciences they attack with straw man arguments.
Don't be made a sucker, good folks, [Editorial] by these habitually anti-intellectual, predominantly far right wing malcontents. Every day in true science these days just brings more data & evidence to bear which is uniformly devastating to their perverse, small minded, often religiously "decorated" worldview and to any meaningful excuse for their dangerous political "alt" hopes.
Finally, I empathize strongly with your latter sentiment, uber hikari, but I am of an age where this will not be possible. And certainly, don't expect a tidy "End" to cosmology within your own lifetime, either!
The Dark Energy which comprises 73% of the Universe should be the Cosmological Constant that appeared in Einstein's original Field Equation. Einstein was persuaded by Edwin Hubble that the Cosmological Constant was unnecessary because the Universe was actually expanding so it was unnecessary to add the C.C. to "keep the Universe static". Einstein then deleted the C.C. from the Equation. So, the Universe expands whether the C.C. is in , or is not in Einstein's Equation. Thus Einstein was not wrong whether he deleted the C.C. or not. A desirable upshot.
@casinomagicportal
If space is space, how can it be distorted? Do you need another name for "space"?
And God said "Let There Be Light!" and then "Jesus Chicken Fried Christ that's too bright...Darker! Darker! Darker! ...It needs to be like 5% of that! Perfect ...Yo, stop writing this down."
can expansion and getting bigger accomplish the same thing?
What is up with that disclaimer in the beginning ??
If Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not observable, then in what way scientists were able to determine the percentage amount of each dark things in the universe?
Maybe, Einstein was right if he assumed the cosmological constant behaves like the constant of elasticity or modulus of elasticity of elastic material. But then he would be challenged to find a way to determine the "cosmologial stress limit" as well as the "cosmological elastic limit."
It might be related to the same force or not, but inflation was so much larger an expansion effect compared to what we are currently seeing, it's not even in the same league.
Some astrophysicist told me that ions cancel out in space. Actually gravity cancels out, since everything is pulling everything else in all directions.
25:30 I was the first one to come up with a gravity hypothesis that is better than Einstein's. It even predicts the gravitational effect called dark matter and the inflating effect called dark energy. They stem from the same mechanism that causes gravity. It is so simple that I cannot believe it was not thought of before.
Since the gravitational force required to account for the observed effects can only be produced through the presence of mass, we know there has to be an extra source of mass there. We can even "see" the shape of its concentration pattern, by extrapolating from the known laws of motion (Einstein's field equation) plus the observed motions of nearby visible objects. The shapes turn out to be large, diffuse, roughly spherical halos around galaxies. We know no other way to account for the evidence.
It is not our problem if you do not understand the goal of science as a tool in our intellectual struggle to understand the universe. It is not also our problem if you will never know the true nature of the principal contradiction at this stage. It is not also our problem if you missed the new theory of knowledge. It is not also our problem if you cannot understand the entirely new way.
Same thing happens at small scales with the higgs bosons. They will never find it because “matter” generates itself at the smaller levels too and you always find something when you look at it because we collapse the wave functions into 3D reality. Consciousness is the computer.
"Everything will oscillate in periodic or harmonic motion. An incredible irony lies in the fact that scientists have built this gloomy scenario themselves based on theories of absolutes and concepts of permanence -- neither of which exist anywhere in our Universe. The One Universe."
Galaxies collide for the same reason that asteroids still smash into us. Gravity attracts these objects and brings them together. Every galactic supercluster (many galaxies) are bound together gravitationally, while the universe expands in between superclusters. So two different superclusters will never collide, but all the galaxies within a single supercluster will probably collapse into a a giant black hole at some point in the far distant future.
Recently, I found out all visible matter makes up less than 5% of the universe. That blew my mind. Maybe, all visible matter is the flame we see in a campfire. A flame looks solid for a second. Dark energy is the heat giving off from the campfire and the ash left behind is the dark matter. Maybe, the ash or dark matter is the normal state for the universe? Just think, only 200 hundred years ago we thought the Earth was the center of the Universe.
Nice metaphor. In science it is always good to think, "What if I am even less central than I thought I was?"
Such thinking seems to be key in the process that makes most of our major advances, just couple it with unification and you have a recipe for being classified with Einstein, Newton, and Galileo.
Gravity produces energy it does not consume it. When gravity is used as the work force in thermodynamics it produces energy. This explains why the universe is inflating without the need to add dark energy.
Not that I'm an expert but I believe current opinion is that it isn't expanding into anything. Its just getting bigger :)
Part of the problem we have when thinking about this is that we imagine a universe with edges expanding, like blowing up a balloon. But its not like that. Where ever you go in the universe, you are _never_ at an edge. Space sort of curls back on itself, so everywhere seems like it's in the middle. Thus is doesn't need to expand into anything. It just gets bigger. Crazy!
Space, described by two Principles of WSM underlies all natural laws of science.
When mass is accelerated, an energy exchange takes place between waves of mass and the surrounding space medium. Thus the space medium, created by the mass of the Universe is observed as the inertial frame of F=ma as Mach asserted.
They suggest that R is a finite distance in an infinite Universe. Infinity is the line symmetry between Times Past and Time to Come in the form of an inverse sphere of future probability.
@jqs1943 What some consider to be a universal gravity that coexits as a component of the interstellar or intergallactic dynamics, is actually the X-gravity field factor of a gravitational force field that, in conjunction with the Theta waves of the universe makes up the fabric of the universe. The X-gravity field factor is a subfield of a gravitational force field that repels other worlds and form a part of the dynamics that establishes orbital corridors for those worlds, and avoid collisions.
@HConstantine
This is the definition I go by. Space: "A continous area or surface which is free, avaliable, or unoccupied.
It is a concept that presupposes that there are things, then there can be space between them.
I don´t think space is -absolute nothing- even if I might have said so before. It is the absence of something specific. I´m not too sure abolute nonexistence can ever properly be claimed to exist.
I think that the space is a calculation done by consciousness in order to interpret the data that comes into it. It is a mathematical function defined by the (LCS) consciousness system. Scientists are expecting to see the edge of the Universe and they will never find it because is all virtual and it generates itself as long as you stare at it.
There is no dark matter/energy. Please do an objective video on the Electric Universe and Plasma physics. Thank you.
Please read my recent comment on the possibility of a vacuum existing in empty space.
"Waves from all wave-center's of the universe combine their intensities forming the wave-medium density (space) at each point of space.
The total amplitude formed by inward spherical waves colliding at maximum compression points at wave crest and troughs always seeks a minimum equally balanced by opposite expansion at interchanging compression points as trillions of waves cancel the sum of opposite vectors is always zero. This is the reason for the symmetry or conservation laws in physics."