It's interesting that probably the most common chemical in our daily lives, liquid water, is in fact a bimodal collection of two different states, one with high density and one with low density. The low density state has lower enthalpy, but also lower entropy and there's a meta stable high density structure that dominates at higher temperature. The struggle between the two states switches over at about 4C, the temperature of maximum density, when the low density state gains the upper hand. This is why the bottoms of deep lakes in the Northern Hemisphere are usually at 4C all year long. At 0C, the low density state takes over and you get ice. Water is an extremely weird substance.
Most people would be shocked to know how much difficulty is encountered in a task so seemingly trivial as modeling water in computer simulation to advance chemistry and protein science.
Yes the hydrogen in water makes it weird I agree with you however when you consider being in gravity yeah weird However doesn't this resemble a Fridge? Lol too? eventual decay of the system if like this ** could happen however I think possibly in spots I guess Gravity does a lot to make sure of it continuing However all of this is unknown
I'm not shocked. What would shock me is if anything ever turned out to be simple. Back in the day my grandfather kept an old lobster pot a ways out in the lake. This was a fishing lodge with no electricity and no refrigeration but that was no problem, even in the summer. All he had to do was row out to that lobster pot, pull it up, and get a cold beer.
I promise your boss will call you 1 millisecond after universe collapse and say it's not an excuse for being late, because Barbara from finance is sick today
I spent all day looking for a sheet metal plate that had been laying around the shop as trash and getting in the way for years. Then at the end of the day I found it sitting on the break room table when I walked by as I left the shop. wtf. I hadn't touched it in weeks so how did it end up there?
Yeah, I'm so glad we're past those dark times when we used to think this was the fault of some weird creatures like gremlins or socket goblins. Thanks, science.
Don't worry, when people displaying the Dunning Krueger effect think that first, they know how old the universe is, then second, also can tell you what happened back then.
The great thing about this prediction is that it can only be right, as otherwise nobody will be around to refute it. We'll literally be gone faster than our brain can realize it.
Dyson studied and researched this subject years ago and determined.... " Throw out your old vacuum. " A great deal of their results were based on the pioneering vacuum research of Kirby and Hoover.
@@floorpizza8074 I always forget his name. The study of the agitation of dust particles in a vacuum, while interesting at times, does in fact, suck. His papers on upright versus canister are fascinating and well worth the read.
This is super interesting, a question is it a possibility that these experiments could derive fingerprints of the process occurring? This would give you a mechanism to see if the process had occurred in the past and determine if it is observable…
@@AquarianSoulTimeTravelerEmpty means the fields are in the ground state, in the case of most fields the ground state is zero, in the case of the Higgs field the ground state is above zero. Most other fields are characterized by random fluctuations that annihilate themselves with net energy production. There is a contradiction however, if there is no space there is no universe, where the universe is not spacetime curves back in on its self. If we can build a machine that makes spacetime disappear (faster than its self generating process), guess what happens? So the question is how can our universe began as a bubble in space that does not yet exist? The other question is if the inflaton is a prerequisite for spacetime, the what is an inflaton that another universe we are unaware can create a bubble. Bubble universe theories give me gas.
@@samcerulean1412 completely agree time is not a spatial dimension... in the world of timelessness all exist at once meaning everything is in the Big Bang State all the time this is why spooky action at a distance isn't spooky because there is no distance it's all the big bang singularity only thing making it not in that state is time. Time is the only thing keeping things solid and maintaining the illusion of solid.
@@jktech2117 it is an interesting phenomenon to study. But even if scientists would find out when and where it happens, nothing can be done to stop it. So there is no rush.
📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 The concept of a "false" vacuum in physics suggests that space can fall apart if a quantum fluctuation causes a stable false vacuum to decay, releasing enormous energy. 🧐 Empty space is more complex than it seems, and physicists believe our universe was created from empty space, which could eventually decay if it is a false vacuum. 🚀 Metastable states are somewhat stable until disturbed, and quantum fluctuations can trigger phase transitions from metastable to stable states. 📊 The experiment involved ultracold gases and observed a phase transition triggered by quantum fluctuations and bubble nucleation, confirming theories of quantum-triggered phase transitions. 💡 The researchers plan to conduct more experiments but assure that accidentally destroying the universe is highly unlikely. 📣 Concluding Remarks: The video discusses the concept of a false vacuum in physics and how quantum fluctuations can trigger phase transitions. It explores the possibility that our universe was created from a false vacuum and could eventually decay. The experiment with ultracold gases confirms the theories of quantum-triggered phase transitions. While the idea of accidentally destroying the universe is highly unlikely, further research will be conducted to understand these phenomena better. Generated using TalkBud
One common and dangerous meta-stable state of water (superheated) can happen when microwaving it. If you boil water in a very smooth container (e.g. glass measuring cup), it can heat it to above the boiling point, then when you move it or add something to it it will instantly boil over, spraying boiling water everywhere. This can more easily happen if you use the microwave to boil it once, forget about it, then boil it again as the first boiling removes dissolved gasses. Add something wooden (stir-stick, chopstick, spoon) to your cup before microwaving, or use a kettle. Superheated water when microwaving happens when there are fewer nucleation points to assist in water-vapor bubble formation: less dissolved gasses/impurities, smooth container, etc.
(Very long comment) So in summary the theory of this video is that the vacuum of space is in semi/meta stability and might or eventually decay to a more stable state, probably not fun for anything, living in it at that time My theory is that before there was any matter/anti matter in the universe or any other universes before to cause a big bounce, there were just quantum fluctuations until in a infinite amount of time something like a Circular wave of quantum fluctuations into a single point caused a masive spike, an explosion in matter with a ring of anti matter on the outside, A Big Bang. Part of my inspiration comes from this slow mo guys video (ua-cam.com/video/iWKFPTgkpXo/v-deo.htmlsi=nRAP8hHPxq58ayJ6). So, in my understanding of this video, there could be instability in space because of an imbalance of matter to antimatter. This leads me to two theories. 1. This imbalance can't be realised without it getting extreme enough to tip the balance, apparently not even in black holes. Due to them still existing and not collapsing even more. so then potentially in a situation where the universe collapses back on and itself, (which i think seems more likely Based off of one of your previous videos where in a paper it said if Universe is still expanding exponentially this number is 1 where it actually appeared to be 0.8. I also felt like the big crunch was more likely in part due to diagrams of the universe expanding over where it shows near the beginning a rapid Expansion and then it very slowly expanding and then starting to exponentially expand and part Hopeful thinking that the rest of the universe will eventually being reached.) So, in this situation, I think a few things could happen. The worst of which everything returns to a zero energy state, wear space collapses and returns to just quantum fluctuations Though I'm more of the mind that something like a big bounce happens where a new big bang happens except where matter and anti matters roles could be reversed and a new maybe Slightly bigger Universe is created or maybe smaller one instead, discounting the possibility that the unobservable universe might be infinite. 2. This imballence can be realized. Well, entrupy basically all energy and matter anti or otherwise over a long enough time will slowly decay restoring the balance. Ps: Sorry for any mistakes or In consistencies im not an expert just an 18 year old with out a proper education but with a passion for the more complicated things in life :)
Are quantum fluctuations thought to be spontaneous within individual, universal fields, spontaneous interactions between fields, or some third thing? Can they be considered unstable particles? Could the Higgs Field be thought of in reverse where it stripmines mass potential and "carries" it as a perturbation until the potentials interfere and "knot?" I'll be over here pretending I fully understand my own questions.
For clarification, does this "interaction" imply the contribution from more than one field, ie. electromagnetic & higgs, or just spontaneous within a single field, ie. spontaneous EM perturbation with all interactions then governed by nonspontaneous physics? Another way to state the latter is whether different fields can carry INUS conditions (Insufficient but Necessary parts of Unnecessary but Sufficient conditions) for a "spontaneous" perturbation. If for example, fields carried conditional interactive elements, as if they could commit a "Rounding error" and carry, with some uncertainty, an omission error equal in magnitude to the error of comission. If two fields contained "compatible" errors, they might then interact as a "spontaneous" fluctuation (insufficient alone, sufficient together) that "generates" both measurable effect and propagates a new "Rounding error" of uncertainty. Thank you for your initial response. None expected in reply to this ❤
@@SabineHossenfelder nothing is spontaneous. everything reacts with everything in one way or another, directly or indirectly. Once we figure out quantum, we will find out that there is something bellow it, pulling the strings or sheets.. or whatever the quantum is build from
@@SickPrid3 have you heard of how some think quantum gravity works? As i understand it, highly quantum entangled spacetime. Perhaps we'll never be able to observe this at the scales where it happens and just have to live with gravity as an emergent property
You can apply all the knowledge you want to how the Universe began...and you are still no where close. If Science has proved anything regarding creation...it's that we are wrong. Thanks JWT. My kid is doing a timeline on the Universe...I told him to study hard...soak in all the theories...then just make something up that makes sense. Couldn't be any more wrong than our current models.
There is a lot missing in the video. If we would have a better theory, we could just calculate all these vacuum states - and thus, we would know whether our current vacuum is stable or not, and what other vacuums can exist. Currently, we can't do that: Standard Model fails miserably when you try to calculate vacuum energy density (the result depends on energy scale cutoff you chose, and diverges as you increase the cutoff). So, what Sabine talks about is somewhat handwavey ideas physicists have: "imagine that we do have a better theory, and that it produces the following vacuum states..." The possibilities are indeed interesting (vacuum decay may explain inflationary phase of Big Bang, for one).
thank you for the high quality videos, i truly learn allot from them. must say thought that the humoristic comments along the video distract quite signifyingly from the subject and makes much harder to understand. many times i see scientist use that. its like your afraid its not interesting enough on its own or that people might loose it without some "human" comments. i think its the exact opposite, it makes you watch the video filling you didn't understand it. and than you think its boring or that you are stupid for not getting it. while the truth is that you where just distracted many times
Sabine, could you please say "hypothesis" instead of "theory" when you are actually talking about a hypothesis? There are enough confused people already who don't understand what "theory" actually means in science, and that it's not the same as "hypothesis".
Comparing the universe to an undisturbed teenager has to be one of the best explanations I've heard for a long time. A meta stable state that is just fine unless it is disturbed. But, if disturbed, weird things can happen. Brilliant.
Thankfully, our particular false vacuum isn't just space, it is spacetime. So if the phase transition occurred, time would stop, all matter would cease to exist and we wouldn't know a thing about it. It's a bit of an Epicurean consolation but it's better than fire and brimstone.
Forgive me but I am incredibly skeptical that the well-established and not so mysterious physics and chemistry of phase transitions is an explanatory model for how the entire universe appeared from sort of but not quite empty space. Those are not even remotely comparable notions as one grossly violates the conservation of both mass and energy, and the other one does not. I'm surprised that anyone would consider that. Until someone can demonstrate that a measurable quantity of matter appears out of nothing, which I'm very skeptical will ever be demonstrated, color me incredibly skeptical about these notions. This is where I would extend sabine's notion that physics has lost its mind because it's fallen in love with mathematics. Dark energy and dark matter are both placeholder concepts that have no real established physics apart from measurements and correlation. Color me very skeptical about those Concepts too. We humans love our Concepts and reify them and turn them into magical concepts. This is well Illustrated when people talk about how quantum mechanics is going to explain everything, including life and consciousness, which is all just magical thinking frankly and no one in my field of Neuroscience aside from a few Fringe quackers believes that Consciousness is going to be explained by quantum mechanics. This kind of magical view of science is incentivized by publications, tenure, status, and our near delusional capacity to convince ourselves that we know a hell of a lot more than we really know.
Hi. I'm not a scientist of any sort, but I wanted to ask you, if it's possible that as the universe expands, it is creating the space into which it expands? Creating new space(?) I ask because I've read that if one were traveling in a straight line through the universe, one can't keep going in that straight line forever. Instead, one will curve and come back to the original starting point. I really don't know what I'm talking about, but wanted to ask. Thank you and best wishes.@@LG-km8fw
If the universe fell out of false vacuum it wouldn't matter unless it happened within the observable universe, because if it happened beyond the causal horizon, it's spread would never reach us, since information isn't be able to exceed lightspeed. Maybe the universe is like an infinite swiss cheese.
Sabine, you're a master of youtube titles that look ike clickbait but end up being super educational. Your Brian Cox video was amazing. I thought "Oh no he gave up on science and is now sniffing glue and eating lead paint..." And then it was a video of you clarifying his poetic statements and that he never claimed to have debunked anything. I love you and your channel and can't wait to see the next video! Thank you for all your hardwork to get where you are today so that we can be educated and entertained by you!
That was actually the most interesting take-away for me from watching this video. The new experiment shows that the decay process doesn't necessarily propagate at a constant rate. So, if this is in fact a valid model for what would happen during spontaneous vacuum decay, it might not necessarily propagate at the speed of light and we could have some advance warning as we observe oscillations in the decay of spacetime at the edge of the observable universe.
@@retiredbore378Most space expands at a faster rate than the speed of light. More likely, if it doesn't happen directly near us, it may never reach us.
@@deathscreton: Space doesn't expand. That's an erroneous idea rooted in a series of faulty misinterpretations. We won't see much progress in cosmology until it is acknowledged that the universe is static.
Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: this was the plot of Curt Vonnegut's 1963 novel Cat's Cradle, which was fiction, too. Is there evidence that metastable states exist? Yes. Is there evidence that the vacuum is a metastable state? No. Testing whether it is would be science. Proposing that it might be without any evidence is not.
I like these short bulletins. Shouldn't the title say "analogue of the process?" I was a little worried. Hey, what's the difference between a vacuum and a false vacuum? No, this isn't a dad joke. I really want to know.
A true vacuum would already be the lowest energetic state. It is not in a meta-stable state that could experience a phase transition. Unfortunately, there is no known way to experimentally distinguish a false from a true vacuum.
@@Thomas-gk42technically her joke at the end could cause someone to mistakenly conclude that she thinks these experiments could pose a danger, though.
false vacuums is a more fundamental idea than quantum mechanics, so i would avoid talking about their decays as a quantum property, it is more like quantum properties are properties of false vacuums :).
Or...a false vaccum is a very abstract concept for temporal dimensionality. And the only way it can decay is as a quantum property, it is more like the stability of the "past" is a relative quantum property that defines how it could be possible for decay to occur.
Super cool. 😎 Though been hearing about false vacuum decay, (either putting energy in by external forces or quantum tunneling). Glad there is an actual testing. Though I have questions on this hypothesis because it leaves a lot speculation of questions prior to the universe.
In this case, I feel it to be a matter of semantics. The heating pads are filled with sodium acetate trihydrate. When you heat them up, they release the water that is part of the crystal structure and then the sodium acetate dissolves in this water. This happens at a temperature that is hundreds of degrees lower than the melting point of anhydrous sodium acetate. So, by that definition, the transition from solid to liquid should not be considered melting and the delayed phase transition should not be considered supercooling. You are absolutely correct. Making this distinction is perfectly defensible. But if you argue that the solid crystal isn't really the same as anhydrous sodium acetate and in fact the water forms an intrinsic part of the compound, then it is just as reasonable to refer to this process as supercooling. It might not be the same definition that chemists or physicists prefer, but that's by convention rather than by it being unambiguously more correct. In a video that only tangentially touches on the behavior of sodium acetate, I don't have a problem skipping over this rather subtle distinction.
I don't see where there would be any chemical reaction involved. This is all physics, although you are correct that chemists are very familiar with the process as well and would take it into account when computing stochiometry. The conventional view is that the compound is sodium acetate which is made up of sodium cations and acetate anions with embedded water of crystallization. In the solid, the ions form ionic bonds, whereas the water forms covalent or hydrogen bonds with the sodium cations. Also, while the ions form a well-defined lattice, hydrates tend to be much more complicated and often form complicated polymer structures. None of this matters much for the chemical behavior as upon heating the structures break down and you again end up with a liquid containing water, sodium, and acetate. In order to make things easier to talk about, by convention we often refer to the simplifying fiction that the "real" compound is the crystal containing just the sodium cations and the acetate anions. The ionic bonds are the only thing we care about and the weaker complex-forming bonds are ignored. The hydrate is then viewed as the pure compound having dissolved some water. And that's certainly a good mental model. It works well to describe all sorts of reactions and it makes it easier to accept that hydration doesn't necessarily have to be complete, whereas ionic bonds always have to be perfectly balanced. Also, in general, conventions are good because they make it easier to communicate. But I posit that this is a somewhat arbitrary choice. There is no obvious reason why we wouldn't consider the hydrated salt to be the natural state of the compound. And if you assert that we are dealing with a compound consisting of sodium, acetate and water in a 1:1:3 ratio, then the phase transition would just be a melting/freezing process instead of a dissolving/crystallization process. This is a perfectly reasonable albeit non-traditional view. As a chemist, I obviously would stick to the conventional terms, as they convey the subtle differences that are important to me and as precise communication is important. But to a lay person, the distinction is unnecessary nitpicking, as it isn't at all apparent why water would be treated differently from all other molecules that form part of a solid.
After a day on my allotment with hand warmers stuck down my gloves, I'll never feel the same way about these hot little items of pleasure. Now I know I'm wearing something that just went through a phase transition... And there was me thinking it was just magic.
Don't worry about us accidentally destroying the universe, if that was possible then it's likely some other alien civilization would have already done so. Giving that we are still here we can conclude that it's either not possible or it can't be done accidentally or easily, or the decay field is yet to reach us...
*Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.* *Say, "Never will we be struck except by what Allah has decreed for us; He is our protector." And upon Allah let the believers rely.*
Yes!!!!!! Bounce and snap. Constant convergence and refraction phasing in entanglement....entropy vs evolution both wrapped up entangled and weaving through paradox. It's almost impossible to snap this bond into rapid decay. You would have to literally shear the entire paradox in half - really fast
It's strange to think that the human primate could destroy the universe by monkeying around. But after I discovered that the coldest place in the universe is in an earth lab, and seeing what they're doing at the LHC, it's not impossible. We're delving into processes that likely don't occur anywhere else.
This has always been my favorite idea for cosmology, even though some think it sucks. Some may wonder if there is a true vacuum. I doubt it. This is similar to a cyclic universe model, but cleaner.
The reason the entire galaxy hasn't been colonized by an advanced civilization is because every time one discovers how to generate vacuum decay they destroy the universe and a new one is born.
this vid is clickbait. this experiment is just a variation of the quantum tunneling physics. so what? energy is conserved, simply tunnels to another regime. that intrinsic phenomena can spontaneously make a system phase transition is known also in classical physics. In this case it has only tunneling as mechanism, which by the way is still a mistery how it ACTUALLY happens.
Ok, nice experiment on metastable states. But I miss what it implies for the vacuum state of the universe. Is it an established fact that we are in a metastable state? This experiment proves exactly nothing about that; it simply verifies the well known fact that metastable states can tunnel to more stable ones.
I'm still curious about the mechanism causing quantum fluctuations. I've heard it described in a way where particles are like perturbations in a field, like a rock thrown in a pond makes ripples. But to carry this analogy any further, my assumption was always that the initial "rock" was the Big Bang, and that the eventual heat death of the universe could be interpreted as the pond finally settling again. Often times these analogies are not really a reliable description of reality though. Regarding this video, I'm trying to figure out what quantum fluctuations are supposed to mean in a time before the Big Bang, when the "pond" was supposedly undisturbed. Or maybe it wasn't? Perhaps someone who actually has a degree in this stuff can help me understand. It's interesting to think about, but not necessarily productive without the theoretical chops...
And where did the non-existing rock and non-existing arm come from? It seems to take a big shift to get a non-existing universe into an existing one. And there must surely be some residuals of rock and arms at least somewhere 🙂
Maybe we should worry a lot more about the future instead of the past, because the future that I see has a VERY HIGH chance of being very bleak for mankind. At that point, most of our scientific aspirations won't matter.
There’s lot to learn all around to the quantum physics! I have somewhat understood the overall mechanism of the quantum communication but with something like this is just giving me more time to ponder on it!
I propose a cosmological model that envisions a universe with a toroidal topology. Imagine a universe shaped like a doughnut, a torus. This structure would allow the universe’s expansion to curve back on itself, akin to the surface of a toroid. An analogy can be drawn to the toroidal magnetic fields around magnets, where field lines create a closed loop, suggesting a similar topological structure for the universe. At a point within this torus, a convergence vortex is postulated, analogous to the eye of a hurricane or the center of a galaxy. Here, paths of matter and energy could intertwine and interact intensely. The dynamics at this point could resemble the extreme conditions of particle accelerators, where particles meet at high energies, leading to transformative reactions and new phenomena. This concept mirrors what happens in high-energy physics experiments, where particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate, releasing energy. In this model, such events could occur naturally at the vortex, potentially contributing to the universe’s expansion and evolution, similar to the energy release during the Big Bang. Adapting Einstein’s field equations, this model could predict how mass-energy within the toroidal universe distorts spacetime. This could be compared to the way massive objects like stars and black holes curve spacetime around them, but on a universal scale. By applying Quantum Field Theory (QFT) Dynamics, the interactions at the vortex can be analyzed in detail. For instance, how might quantum fluctuations contribute to the conditions within the vortex, akin to the way they are thought to have influenced the early universe? The model could utilize principles such as the conservation of angular momentum, seen in rotating celestial bodies, and apply it to the motion of galaxies within the torus. Symmetry principles from particle physics, like CP (charge-parity) symmetry, might also be relevant in understanding matter-antimatter interactions at the vortex. In exploring thermodynamics, we might consider how energy is distributed in a toroidal universe. Does the vortex represent a low-entropy state, much like the concentrated energy of the early universe, before it dispersed and increased in entropy over time? The model necessitates a blending of quantum mechanics and general relativity, especially to understand the conditions at the vortex. This could pave the way for insights into quantum gravity.
1:56 Twisting this small metal plate does not create electric spark. And doesnt either create pressure. And also, this heating pad shown now, is not a supercooled solution. It's a normal chemical solution that reacts by to a normal type of mineral released when cracking it. This reaction is called exothermal
I want to take this moment to let you know that I admire your enormous brain and your practicality and simple articulation of some very big topics. 💪🏼💙
In the 70's whilst doing engineering studies An interesting device came up in the electronics market Tunnel diodes. One use was to make an oscillator because of it's negative resistance. Haven't heard much about these diodes since then
If space is infinite it could have infinite gravity which could tear a universe into existence from within itself. The resulting energy might then phase convert into matter. I call this absolute space.
Great story and neat experiment, though I’m sure we’ll never know where all this energy originally came from, or why there is something rather than nothing
I liked physics at school because I could do things, explain things around me. Until it became about those vague subjects like here, they sound like fairy tales for adults. Take a few steps back and listen to, and look at, what is presented. To me it looks like a guessing trip in the mist, really going nowhere. Where is the physics that changed the world profoundly like electricity did, isn’t there news about that kind of physics too? It would feel heart warming once in a while.
Video idea: Maybe you could talk about the evidence for and against the idea that time started with the big bang and the universe exists as space that was created during that bang and expanded (as opposed to the idea that we are expanding into a relatively empty portion of something and "space-time" exists outside of the "big bang residue").
"Don't worry that they'll accidentally destroy the universe, I think it is very unlikely." !!! Somehow that is not very reassuring, Sabine. I'm reminded of the following scene from Oppenheimer: GROVES: Are we saying there’s a chance that when we push that button... we destroy the world? OPPENHEIMER: Nothing in our research over the last three years supports that conclusion except as the most remote possibility. GROVES: How remote? OPPENHEIMER: The chances are near zero. GROVES: Near zero?! OPPENHEIMER: What do you want from theory alone? GROVES: Zero would be nice.
Hi, I'm not a professional physicist, but what's a virtual particle? An electron, a proton, a packet of energy? There is something about if borrow energy and pay it back fast enough, it's ok. But for a virtual particle to exist it has to get separated from it counterpart like what happens at the event horizon of a black hole? What about the inside of a black hole, does those a virtual particle exist? Doesn't that qualify as a big bang? Size is relative and so is time. And never mind the fact that a photon isn't keeping track of time nor aware of it.
You reset a hand warmer by boiling it in water to turn the solid back into a liquid. This looks similar to melting ice, and is heating it, so how can it be "supercooling" it? How is it possible to supercool something without special laboratory conditions (extreme pressure or temperature)?
Sabine is it possible that the matter in the universe is matter without time. I mean matter that absolutely does not move. we cannot measure it because we always move away from it. we cannot live without the moving time. those particles are perhaps like water we live in.
There is a false vacuum decaying in my living room closet
😆
There is a real vacuum in my enthusiasm to clean up my den and garage. The half-life of this real vacuum is longer than my life.
There's a false vacuum decaying in my head when I do morning report updates at work🥲
there's been one in my dreams since 1997
@@politicalfoolishness7491aka true vaccum
Gravity always makes me feel down, but false vacuums just suck.
never let a false vacuum near a penis you love.
You're a sucker for vacuum but not much for gravity.
"Crisis on Infinite Earths" is based on this theory.
Vacuum is interesting. It contains two yous at the same time.
If I may say so, I find gravity quite attractive.
It's interesting that probably the most common chemical in our daily lives, liquid water, is in fact a bimodal collection of two different states, one with high density and one with low density. The low density state has lower enthalpy, but also lower entropy and there's a meta stable high density structure that dominates at higher temperature. The struggle between the two states switches over at about 4C, the temperature of maximum density, when the low density state gains the upper hand. This is why the bottoms of deep lakes in the Northern Hemisphere are usually at 4C all year long. At 0C, the low density state takes over and you get ice. Water is an extremely weird substance.
Most people would be shocked to know how much difficulty is encountered in a task so seemingly trivial as modeling water in computer simulation to advance chemistry and protein science.
ah, yes, but what about Ice 9? 😁
@sabine....sabineeee die tun es schon wieder sabineeee
Yes the hydrogen in water makes it weird I agree with you however when you consider being in gravity yeah weird However doesn't this resemble a Fridge? Lol too?
eventual decay of the system if like this ** could happen however I think possibly in spots I guess Gravity does a lot to make sure of it continuing However all of this is unknown
I'm not shocked. What would shock me is if anything ever turned out to be simple.
Back in the day my grandfather kept an old lobster pot a ways out in the lake. This was a fishing lodge with no electricity and no refrigeration but that was no problem, even in the summer. All he had to do was row out to that lobster pot, pull it up, and get a cold beer.
Well, at least I won’t have to go to work tomorrow
Might as well take today off too. Just in case.
Silver linings
Actually; after the universe tears apart; it will reform again.....
....so you do have to back to work ....
I promise your boss will call you 1 millisecond after universe collapse and say it's not an excuse for being late, because Barbara from finance is sick today
@@oskarngo9138you’re twisting my melon man.
My Vacuum Decayed and now I need to replace its Great Filter
Please don't. I am a bit uncomfortable with Great Filters.
as it was a false vacuum, you must have a dirty carpet.
You should buy the Dyson Sphere model
@@russmarkham2197 that's it, sweep everything you don't understand under the universe's dirty carpet!
@paulconrad6220 mine fused its rotation motor. Got a better one elsewhere cheaper.
"I think it's very unlikely they will destroy the universe." - thank you Sabine.
It's more like creative re-arrangement.
I would have preferred a more definitive statement!
Unlikely - in other words, there’s a small, but finite probability that it will.
"What do you want from theory alone?"
- Oppenheimer
Haha, that's a near quote from the LHC team when asked if it would produce micro-blackholes that could swallow up the planet.
Whenever I can't find something in my workshop, I blame quantum tunneling. 😛
I spent all day looking for a sheet metal plate that had been laying around the shop as trash and getting in the way for years. Then at the end of the day I found it sitting on the break room table when I walked by as I left the shop. wtf. I hadn't touched it in weeks so how did it end up there?
The scrap metal faerie. They're pesky little buggers.
Yeah, I'm so glad we're past those dark times when we used to think this was the fault of some weird creatures like gremlins or socket goblins. Thanks, science.
where is my brain?
Careful you might tunnel through yourself
Thanks Sabine, I can't start my day without a hearty dose of existential dread
If anything, false vacuum decay is the LEAST worrisome thing, because we will never know it happened.
@@cookymonstr7918 Yes you can
Don't worry, when people displaying the Dunning Krueger effect think that first, they know how old the universe is, then second, also can tell you what happened back then.
@@everythingisalllies2141 your antecedent is missing a consequent.
@@collin4555 were we discussing grammar?
"I think it's very unlikely" - last famous words
At least the experimenters didn't say, "Hold my beer."
In this case there will be no record of them.
The great thing about this prediction is that it can only be right, as otherwise nobody will be around to refute it. We'll literally be gone faster than our brain can realize it.
"Nah, I'd win"
Dyson studied and researched this subject years ago and determined....
" Throw out your old vacuum. "
A great deal of their results were based on the pioneering vacuum research of Kirby and Hoover.
Is it coincidence that Kirby the fictional character sucks things in?
"kirby's dreamland" 1992
@@Syncrotron9001
Perhaps some day physicists will call it The Big Kirby.
I believe Richard Bissell (don't call him Dick) was also a part of the et. al.
@@floorpizza8074
I always forget his name.
The study of the agitation of dust particles in a vacuum, while interesting at times, does in fact, suck. His papers on upright versus canister are fascinating and well worth the read.
"I think it very unlikely." So Sabine gets the last meme in the Universe. Oddly comforting.
This is super interesting, a question is it a possibility that these experiments could derive fingerprints of the process occurring? This would give you a mechanism to see if the process had occurred in the past and determine if it is observable…
Yes, that's exactly what they hope to figure out, if it left traces in the CMB for example. (Should have mentioned thsi I guess...)
@@SabineHossenfelderempty space is a contradictory statement... it's like saying massless weight. Lol 😂
@@AquarianSoulTimeTravelerEmpty means the fields are in the ground state, in the case of most fields the ground state is zero, in the case of the Higgs field the ground state is above zero. Most other fields are characterized by random fluctuations that annihilate themselves with net energy production.
There is a contradiction however, if there is no space there is no universe, where the universe is not spacetime curves back in on its self. If we can build a machine that makes spacetime disappear (faster than its self generating process), guess what happens?
So the question is how can our universe began as a bubble in space that does not yet exist?
The other question is if the inflaton is a prerequisite for spacetime, the what is an inflaton that another universe we are unaware can create a bubble.
Bubble universe theories give me gas.
I don’t think the Universe and space/spacetime are the same thing. One can exist before the other.
@@samcerulean1412 completely agree time is not a spatial dimension... in the world of timelessness all exist at once meaning everything is in the Big Bang State all the time this is why spooky action at a distance isn't spooky because there is no distance it's all the big bang singularity only thing making it not in that state is time. Time is the only thing keeping things solid and maintaining the illusion of solid.
I so love how you “season” your talks with humor! Simply delightful!
I don't know why but the delivery of "weird things can happen" was perfect
How are you doing?
"I'm meta-stable."
This seems like a "when you see it coming you are already dead" kind of deal. So worrying about it wont help.
Yep. A bubble of false vacuum decay would likely expand at the speed of light. No warning to anyone in the path of its future light cone.
i mean worrying abt it is big deal so scientists just... dotn do it
@@jktech2117 it is an interesting phenomenon to study. But even if scientists would find out when and where it happens, nothing can be done to stop it. So there is no rush.
@@weorldedit i mean, they shouldnt try to replicate the thing
Swtg-team is distributed across the globe? Wish you all a great and friendly cooperation, and we out here will benefit, till the vacuum decays.
Hi, yes, we are distributed over Germany, Sweden, Canada, Spain, the UK, The US and Japan!
@@SabineHossenfelderHi, thank you
t
I understand time dilation
= mass(energy)2 / time
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
Einsteins head moved in the wrong way to "god rolled dice". His head surely would have shaken
Hi Sabine... could you do a video about CP violation?
Wait.. are we in a hand warmer?. I might be in over my head here
you shouldn't put your head in a handwarmer.
@@FredPlanatia it didn't say not to in the instructions 🤷♂️
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 The concept of a "false" vacuum in physics suggests that space can fall apart if a quantum fluctuation causes a stable false vacuum to decay, releasing enormous energy.
🧐 Empty space is more complex than it seems, and physicists believe our universe was created from empty space, which could eventually decay if it is a false vacuum.
🚀 Metastable states are somewhat stable until disturbed, and quantum fluctuations can trigger phase transitions from metastable to stable states.
📊 The experiment involved ultracold gases and observed a phase transition triggered by quantum fluctuations and bubble nucleation, confirming theories of quantum-triggered phase transitions.
💡 The researchers plan to conduct more experiments but assure that accidentally destroying the universe is highly unlikely.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The video discusses the concept of a false vacuum in physics and how quantum fluctuations can trigger phase transitions. It explores the possibility that our universe was created from a false vacuum and could eventually decay. The experiment with ultracold gases confirms the theories of quantum-triggered phase transitions. While the idea of accidentally destroying the universe is highly unlikely, further research will be conducted to understand these phenomena better.
Generated using TalkBud
Shit happens, hey. If this shit happens to us it'll take out all the other shit we've been dealing with too, as a consolation.
lol can it do after I get my paycheck and before I need to pay my loans 🙂
@@Alan-zf2tt If you time things properly.
@@CAThompson I will wait for next Tuesday 🙂
I wouldn't call this a disturbing idea. It's not like we'd be there to experience it.
@@VikingTeddy We'd be there until we very quickly weren't. 😆
One common and dangerous meta-stable state of water (superheated) can happen when microwaving it. If you boil water in a very smooth container (e.g. glass measuring cup), it can heat it to above the boiling point, then when you move it or add something to it it will instantly boil over, spraying boiling water everywhere. This can more easily happen if you use the microwave to boil it once, forget about it, then boil it again as the first boiling removes dissolved gasses. Add something wooden (stir-stick, chopstick, spoon) to your cup before microwaving, or use a kettle. Superheated water when microwaving happens when there are fewer nucleation points to assist in water-vapor bubble formation: less dissolved gasses/impurities, smooth container, etc.
😂😂 That dig at teenagers!! I love your sense of humour!
🤣😂🤣
I gather she has reasons to know.
@@david_fisher 🤣 my son is 12...
(Very long comment) So in summary the theory of this video is that the vacuum of space is in semi/meta stability and might or eventually decay to a more stable state, probably not fun for anything, living in it at that time
My theory is that before there was any matter/anti matter in the universe or any other universes before to cause a big bounce, there were just quantum fluctuations until in a infinite amount of time something like a Circular wave of quantum fluctuations into a single point caused a masive spike, an explosion in matter with a ring of anti matter on the outside, A Big Bang. Part of my inspiration comes from this slow mo guys video (ua-cam.com/video/iWKFPTgkpXo/v-deo.htmlsi=nRAP8hHPxq58ayJ6). So, in my understanding of this video, there could be instability in space because of an imbalance of matter to antimatter. This leads me to two theories.
1. This imbalance can't be realised without it getting extreme enough to tip the balance, apparently not even in black holes. Due to them still existing and not collapsing even more. so then potentially in a situation where the universe collapses back on and itself, (which i think seems more likely Based off of one of your previous videos where in a paper it said if Universe is still expanding exponentially this number is 1 where it actually appeared to be 0.8. I also felt like the big crunch was more likely in part due to diagrams of the universe expanding over where it shows near the beginning a rapid Expansion and then it very slowly expanding and then starting to exponentially expand and part Hopeful thinking that the rest of the universe will eventually being reached.) So, in this situation, I think a few things could happen. The worst of which everything returns to a zero energy state, wear space collapses and returns to just quantum fluctuations Though I'm more of the mind that something like a big bounce happens where a new big bang happens except where matter and anti matters roles could be reversed and a new maybe Slightly bigger Universe is created or maybe smaller one instead, discounting the possibility that the unobservable universe might be infinite.
2. This imballence can be realized. Well, entrupy basically all energy and matter anti or otherwise over a long enough time will slowly decay restoring the balance.
Ps: Sorry for any mistakes or In consistencies im not an expert just an 18 year old with out a proper education but with a passion for the more complicated things in life :)
Are quantum fluctuations thought to be spontaneous within individual, universal fields, spontaneous interactions between fields, or some third thing?
Can they be considered unstable particles? Could the Higgs Field be thought of in reverse where it stripmines mass potential and "carries" it as a perturbation until the potentials interfere and "knot?"
I'll be over here pretending I fully understand my own questions.
Yes, quantum fluctuations can be considered spontaneous interactions (some types of them at least)
{James nods thoughtfully while holding his chin, desperately pretending to understand what he's just read}
For clarification, does this "interaction" imply the contribution from more than one field, ie. electromagnetic & higgs, or just spontaneous within a single field, ie. spontaneous EM perturbation with all interactions then governed by nonspontaneous physics?
Another way to state the latter is whether different fields can carry INUS conditions (Insufficient but Necessary parts of Unnecessary but Sufficient conditions) for a "spontaneous" perturbation. If for example, fields carried conditional interactive elements, as if they could commit a "Rounding error" and carry, with some uncertainty, an omission error equal in magnitude to the error of comission. If two fields contained "compatible" errors, they might then interact as a "spontaneous" fluctuation (insufficient alone, sufficient together) that "generates" both measurable effect and propagates a new "Rounding error" of uncertainty.
Thank you for your initial response. None expected in reply to this ❤
@@SabineHossenfelder nothing is spontaneous. everything reacts with everything in one way or another, directly or indirectly. Once we figure out quantum, we will find out that there is something bellow it, pulling the strings or sheets.. or whatever the quantum is build from
@@SickPrid3 have you heard of how some think quantum gravity works? As i understand it, highly quantum entangled spacetime. Perhaps we'll never be able to observe this at the scales where it happens and just have to live with gravity as an emergent property
You can apply all the knowledge you want to how the Universe began...and you are still no where close. If Science has proved anything regarding creation...it's that we are wrong. Thanks JWT.
My kid is doing a timeline on the Universe...I told him to study hard...soak in all the theories...then just make something up that makes sense. Couldn't be any more wrong than our current models.
I don’t know whether to feel vindicated or crushed again
There is a lot missing in the video.
If we would have a better theory, we could just calculate all these vacuum states - and thus, we would know whether our current vacuum is stable or not, and what other vacuums can exist.
Currently, we can't do that: Standard Model fails miserably when you try to calculate vacuum energy density (the result depends on energy scale cutoff you chose, and diverges as you increase the cutoff).
So, what Sabine talks about is somewhat handwavey ideas physicists have: "imagine that we do have a better theory, and that it produces the following vacuum states..."
The possibilities are indeed interesting (vacuum decay may explain inflationary phase of Big Bang, for one).
Everything someone tells me to vacuum I just point at it & scream "YOU'RE NOT REAL!!!"
thank you for the high quality videos, i truly learn allot from them. must say thought that the humoristic comments along the video distract quite signifyingly from the subject and makes much harder to understand. many times i see scientist use that. its like your afraid its not interesting enough on its own or that people might loose it without some "human" comments. i think its the exact opposite, it makes you watch the video filling you didn't understand it. and than you think its boring or that you are stupid for not getting it. while the truth is that you where just distracted many times
Sabine, could you please say "hypothesis" instead of "theory" when you are actually talking about a hypothesis? There are enough confused people already who don't understand what "theory" actually means in science, and that it's not the same as "hypothesis".
Yes thank you
Comparing the universe to an undisturbed teenager has to be one of the best explanations I've heard for a long time. A meta stable state that is just fine unless it is disturbed. But, if disturbed, weird things can happen. Brilliant.
Thankfully, our particular false vacuum isn't just space, it is spacetime. So if the phase transition occurred, time would stop, all matter would cease to exist and we wouldn't know a thing about it. It's a bit of an Epicurean consolation but it's better than fire and brimstone.
Forgive me but I am incredibly skeptical that the well-established and not so mysterious physics and chemistry of phase transitions is an explanatory model for how the entire universe appeared from sort of but not quite empty space. Those are not even remotely comparable notions as one grossly violates the conservation of both mass and energy, and the other one does not. I'm surprised that anyone would consider that. Until someone can demonstrate that a measurable quantity of matter appears out of nothing, which I'm very skeptical will ever be demonstrated, color me incredibly skeptical about these notions. This is where I would extend sabine's notion that physics has lost its mind because it's fallen in love with mathematics. Dark energy and dark matter are both placeholder concepts that have no real established physics apart from measurements and correlation. Color me very skeptical about those Concepts too.
We humans love our Concepts and reify them and turn them into magical concepts. This is well Illustrated when people talk about how quantum mechanics is going to explain everything, including life and consciousness, which is all just magical thinking frankly and no one in my field of Neuroscience aside from a few Fringe quackers believes that Consciousness is going to be explained by quantum mechanics. This kind of magical view of science is incentivized by publications, tenure, status, and our near delusional capacity to convince ourselves that we know a hell of a lot more than we really know.
it seems like they are assuming there was space before there was anything. That's a pretty wild assumption.
And the fact that isn't even mentioned in this video is weird to me. I think the vast consensus would disagree with that assumption.
@@jonnyd9351 well the universe is expanding into something. If something expands it needs room for the expansion.
Hi. I'm not a scientist of any sort, but I wanted to ask you, if it's possible that as the universe expands, it is creating the space into which it expands? Creating new space(?) I ask because I've read that if one were traveling in a straight line through the universe, one can't keep going in that straight line forever. Instead, one will curve and come back to the original starting point. I really don't know what I'm talking about, but wanted to ask. Thank you and best wishes.@@LG-km8fw
@@LG-km8fwdoes it though? It is unknown what is outside of spacetime.
@@RandomBLACKman is it moving? It appears to be moving away. Moving in to what?
Jeden Abend ein bisschen Science News von Madame Hossenfelder finde ich super👍, danke
Sie ist ein Juwel.
If the universe fell out of false vacuum it wouldn't matter unless it happened within the observable universe, because if it happened beyond the causal horizon, it's spread would never reach us, since information isn't be able to exceed lightspeed.
Maybe the universe is like an infinite swiss cheese.
Could entanglement accelerate this process though? Wondering
@@lucasjrittershouldn't do, entanglement can't actually transfer information faster than light speed
Inflation is purported to be faster than light, and who knows how much energy is in the next step?
Good point. I feel better now.
You are forgetting inflation where space expands superluminally.
Sabine, you're a master of youtube titles that look ike clickbait but end up being super educational. Your Brian Cox video was amazing. I thought "Oh no he gave up on science and is now sniffing glue and eating lead paint..." And then it was a video of you clarifying his poetic statements and that he never claimed to have debunked anything. I love you and your channel and can't wait to see the next video! Thank you for all your hardwork to get where you are today so that we can be educated and entertained by you!
But what process created the space for fluctuation to exist in it?
You have to presuppose it
but is it enough to presuppose it@@user-gs4oi1fm4l
Cool experiment. How that translates to the creation of the universe is an absurd level "might" correlation.
Well, the good news is that if any such quantum fluctuation does occur it will likely be so instantaneous that we won't even know it has happened.
That was actually the most interesting take-away for me from watching this video. The new experiment shows that the decay process doesn't necessarily propagate at a constant rate. So, if this is in fact a valid model for what would happen during spontaneous vacuum decay, it might not necessarily propagate at the speed of light and we could have some advance warning as we observe oscillations in the decay of spacetime at the edge of the observable universe.
@@retiredbore378 well luckily it wouldnt be that way.. as the light would still arrive, with the wave.. we wouldnt see it coming.
@@retiredbore378Most space expands at a faster rate than the speed of light. More likely, if it doesn't happen directly near us, it may never reach us.
@@deathscreton:
Space doesn't expand. That's an erroneous idea rooted in a series of faulty misinterpretations. We won't see much progress in cosmology until it is acknowledged that the universe is static.
@@hoon_sol Our observations would make no sense if space was static, so we can rule that possibility out. Please don't spread bogus claims.
Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: this was the plot of Curt Vonnegut's 1963 novel Cat's Cradle, which was fiction, too. Is there evidence that metastable states exist? Yes. Is there evidence that the vacuum is a metastable state? No. Testing whether it is would be science. Proposing that it might be without any evidence is not.
I like these short bulletins.
Shouldn't the title say "analogue of the process?" I was a little worried.
Hey, what's the difference between a vacuum and a false vacuum? No, this isn't a dad joke. I really want to know.
A true vacuum would already be the lowest energetic state. It is not in a meta-stable state that could experience a phase transition. Unfortunately, there is no known way to experimentally distinguish a false from a true vacuum.
@@gutschke Well, they'll just have to create nucleating decay bubble in the lab and see, won't they? Thanks for your answer.
When someone says "created from nothing", they do not understand the meaning of "nothing".
The experiment you described has nothing to do with the fluctuations of vacuum energy.
Right, and she didn't claim that, she said that it is a cloud of sodium atoms
Still, it's confusing from the title, and from the begging of the presentation, just speculations to make it more attractive or whatever @@Thomas-gk42
@@Thomas-gk42technically her joke at the end could cause someone to mistakenly conclude that she thinks these experiments could pose a danger, though.
@@jamescomstock7299Hihi, that´s right, but makes the vid more interesting for those who don´t really listen. Sabine is a cunning communicator.
Hi there Sabine! Thanks for the news!
I think that THE most disturbing idea is quantum immortality. That's some Lovecraftian terror hidden in modern day physics
I guess I don't believe enough in quantum mechanics to find it disturbing...
Quantum fluctuations added a "t", popping out of the vacuum, to your sentence: surely you meant quantum "immorality".
@@MrTrancelator could t-popping also be due to translation using artificial inelegance?
I find the concept of quantum immortality comforting.
I find the idea of Quantum Immortality... annoying. After a few resurrections you almost get used to it. Almost.
This would make an awesome star trek episode
false vacuums is a more fundamental idea than quantum mechanics, so i would avoid talking about their decays as a quantum property, it is more like quantum properties are properties of false vacuums :).
I am feeling a false vacuum of solace at that statement.
Or...a false vaccum is a very abstract concept for temporal dimensionality.
And the only way it can decay is as a quantum property, it is more like the stability of the "past" is a relative quantum property that defines how it could be possible for decay to occur.
"all is number"
Super cool. 😎
Though been hearing about false vacuum decay, (either putting energy in by external forces or quantum tunneling). Glad there is an actual testing.
Though I have questions on this hypothesis because it leaves a lot speculation of questions prior to the universe.
I was under the impression that hand warmers contained a supersaturated solution, not a supercooled solution.
Yes
In this case, I feel it to be a matter of semantics. The heating pads are filled with sodium acetate trihydrate. When you heat them up, they release the water that is part of the crystal structure and then the sodium acetate dissolves in this water. This happens at a temperature that is hundreds of degrees lower than the melting point of anhydrous sodium acetate. So, by that definition, the transition from solid to liquid should not be considered melting and the delayed phase transition should not be considered supercooling. You are absolutely correct. Making this distinction is perfectly defensible.
But if you argue that the solid crystal isn't really the same as anhydrous sodium acetate and in fact the water forms an intrinsic part of the compound, then it is just as reasonable to refer to this process as supercooling. It might not be the same definition that chemists or physicists prefer, but that's by convention rather than by it being unambiguously more correct. In a video that only tangentially touches on the behavior of sodium acetate, I don't have a problem skipping over this rather subtle distinction.
I don't see where there would be any chemical reaction involved. This is all physics, although you are correct that chemists are very familiar with the process as well and would take it into account when computing stochiometry.
The conventional view is that the compound is sodium acetate which is made up of sodium cations and acetate anions with embedded water of crystallization. In the solid, the ions form ionic bonds, whereas the water forms covalent or hydrogen bonds with the sodium cations. Also, while the ions form a well-defined lattice, hydrates tend to be much more complicated and often form complicated polymer structures.
None of this matters much for the chemical behavior as upon heating the structures break down and you again end up with a liquid containing water, sodium, and acetate. In order to make things easier to talk about, by convention we often refer to the simplifying fiction that the "real" compound is the crystal containing just the sodium cations and the acetate anions. The ionic bonds are the only thing we care about and the weaker complex-forming bonds are ignored. The hydrate is then viewed as the pure compound having dissolved some water. And that's certainly a good mental model. It works well to describe all sorts of reactions and it makes it easier to accept that hydration doesn't necessarily have to be complete, whereas ionic bonds always have to be perfectly balanced. Also, in general, conventions are good because they make it easier to communicate.
But I posit that this is a somewhat arbitrary choice. There is no obvious reason why we wouldn't consider the hydrated salt to be the natural state of the compound. And if you assert that we are dealing with a compound consisting of sodium, acetate and water in a 1:1:3 ratio, then the phase transition would just be a melting/freezing process instead of a dissolving/crystallization process. This is a perfectly reasonable albeit non-traditional view.
As a chemist, I obviously would stick to the conventional terms, as they convey the subtle differences that are important to me and as precise communication is important. But to a lay person, the distinction is unnecessary nitpicking, as it isn't at all apparent why water would be treated differently from all other molecules that form part of a solid.
After a day on my allotment with hand warmers stuck down my gloves, I'll never feel the same way about these hot little items of pleasure. Now I know I'm wearing something that just went through a phase transition... And there was me thinking it was just magic.
The universe was a mistake, indeed, a very very bad move.
What fascinates me the most is that people in general remain convinced that the Universe actually had a beginning. Intriguing notion, really.
Cosier concept: _Observable_ Beginning
@@DavidEsp1 More comfortable reality: No time whatever..
No more intriguing than not having a beginning. Neither is more provable than the other at this point.
@@jamescomstock7299 Veil upon veil we lift, we find, veil upon veil behind.
Don't worry about us accidentally destroying the universe, if that was possible then it's likely some other alien civilization would have already done so. Giving that we are still here we can conclude that it's either not possible or it can't be done accidentally or easily, or the decay field is yet to reach us...
*Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.*
*Say, "Never will we be struck except by what Allah has decreed for us; He is our protector." And upon Allah let the believers rely.*
Irrelevant bullshit.
@@uriituw 😀😀 "Verily, with the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest"
Glorious Qur'an
@@EAGLE29-TIME Fuck Allah.
Yes!!!!!! Bounce and snap. Constant convergence and refraction phasing in entanglement....entropy vs evolution both wrapped up entangled and weaving through paradox. It's almost impossible to snap this bond into rapid decay. You would have to literally shear the entire paradox in half - really fast
It's strange to think that the human primate could destroy the universe by monkeying around. But after I discovered that the coldest place in the universe is in an earth lab, and seeing what they're doing at the LHC, it's not impossible. We're delving into processes that likely don't occur anywhere else.
I really like the new "let's have a look" compared to the old "that's what we're going to talk about today", Kurz und Knackig 👍
Cyclic Big Bounces (Maha-Kalpa) happened more than the sand particles in the Ganges river - The supreme Buddha
This has always been my favorite idea for cosmology, even though some think it sucks. Some may wonder if there is a true vacuum. I doubt it. This is similar to a cyclic universe model, but cleaner.
The reason the entire galaxy hasn't been colonized by an advanced civilization is because every time one discovers how to generate vacuum decay they destroy the universe and a new one is born.
That's actually a pretty good solution to Fermi's paradox, whether it's vacuum decay, or something similarly dangerous.
I'll prolly reach true vacuum someday ...
this vid is clickbait. this experiment is just a variation of the quantum tunneling physics. so what? energy is conserved, simply tunnels to another regime. that intrinsic phenomena can spontaneously make a system phase transition is known also in classical physics. In this case it has only tunneling as mechanism, which by the way is still a mistery how it ACTUALLY happens.
Careful. It might create a parallel universe. We have enough problems as it is.
Water is far weirder than you can possibly imagine. And then a bit more.
it seems like water has memory
Ok, nice experiment on metastable states. But I miss what it implies for the vacuum state of the universe. Is it an established fact that we are in a metastable state? This experiment proves exactly nothing about that; it simply verifies the well known fact that metastable states can tunnel to more stable ones.
I'm still curious about the mechanism causing quantum fluctuations. I've heard it described in a way where particles are like perturbations in a field, like a rock thrown in a pond makes ripples. But to carry this analogy any further, my assumption was always that the initial "rock" was the Big Bang, and that the eventual heat death of the universe could be interpreted as the pond finally settling again.
Often times these analogies are not really a reliable description of reality though. Regarding this video, I'm trying to figure out what quantum fluctuations are supposed to mean in a time before the Big Bang, when the "pond" was supposedly undisturbed. Or maybe it wasn't?
Perhaps someone who actually has a degree in this stuff can help me understand. It's interesting to think about, but not necessarily productive without the theoretical chops...
And where did the non-existing rock and non-existing arm come from?
It seems to take a big shift to get a non-existing universe into an existing one.
And there must surely be some residuals of rock and arms at least somewhere 🙂
Maybe we should worry a lot more about the future instead of the past, because the future that I see has a VERY HIGH chance of being very bleak for mankind. At that point, most of our scientific aspirations won't matter.
+1
My head is empty space & it is definitely NOT BORING
There’s lot to learn all around to the quantum physics! I have somewhat understood the overall mechanism of the quantum communication but with something like this is just giving me more time to ponder on it!
Your humor is outstanding!
Nice video explaining it Sabine, ty 😄
I propose a cosmological model that envisions a universe with a toroidal topology. Imagine a universe shaped like a doughnut, a torus. This structure would allow the universe’s expansion to curve back on itself, akin to the surface of a toroid. An analogy can be drawn to the toroidal magnetic fields around magnets, where field lines create a closed loop, suggesting a similar topological structure for the universe.
At a point within this torus, a convergence vortex is postulated, analogous to the eye of a hurricane or the center of a galaxy. Here, paths of matter and energy could intertwine and interact intensely. The dynamics at this point could resemble the extreme conditions of particle accelerators, where particles meet at high energies, leading to transformative reactions and new phenomena.
This concept mirrors what happens in high-energy physics experiments, where particle-antiparticle pairs annihilate, releasing energy. In this model, such events could occur naturally at the vortex, potentially contributing to the universe’s expansion and evolution, similar to the energy release during the Big Bang.
Adapting Einstein’s field equations, this model could predict how mass-energy within the toroidal universe distorts spacetime. This could be compared to the way massive objects like stars and black holes curve spacetime around them, but on a universal scale.
By applying Quantum Field Theory (QFT) Dynamics, the interactions at the vortex can be analyzed in detail. For instance, how might quantum fluctuations contribute to the conditions within the vortex, akin to the way they are thought to have influenced the early universe?
The model could utilize principles such as the conservation of angular momentum, seen in rotating celestial bodies, and apply it to the motion of galaxies within the torus. Symmetry principles from particle physics, like CP (charge-parity) symmetry, might also be relevant in understanding matter-antimatter interactions at the vortex.
In exploring thermodynamics, we might consider how energy is distributed in a toroidal universe. Does the vortex represent a low-entropy state, much like the concentrated energy of the early universe, before it dispersed and increased in entropy over time?
The model necessitates a blending of quantum mechanics and general relativity, especially to understand the conditions at the vortex. This could pave the way for insights into quantum gravity.
Thanks! An issue I never knew existed and one I will probably not worry about anytime soon
1:56
Twisting this small metal plate does not create electric spark.
And doesnt either create pressure.
And also, this heating pad shown now, is not a supercooled solution.
It's a normal chemical solution that reacts by to a normal type of mineral released when cracking it. This reaction is called exothermal
2:47 a soup can in the position it is normally in when placed on a shelf is a good example of a meta stable state.
What existed before 1 Planck time . ? 10 to the -43 seconds . 🌏
I want that hand warmer thingy. THat is so cool!
Brian Cock debunks the Big Bang and Sabine destroys the universe with quantum mechanics all within a week!
Cool. Where did the vacuum come from?
I want to take this moment to let you know that I admire your enormous brain and your practicality and simple articulation of some very big topics. 💪🏼💙
The novel Schild’s Ladder by Greg Egan tells the tale of an accidental false vacuum decay and the heaps of trouble that ensues. Brilliant!
What if the Big bang was not the beginning, just a quantum event
In the 70's whilst doing engineering studies An interesting device came up in the electronics market Tunnel diodes. One use was to make an oscillator because of it's negative resistance. Haven't heard much about these diodes since then
If space is infinite it could have infinite gravity which could tear a universe into existence from within itself. The resulting energy might then phase convert into matter. I call this absolute space.
Great story and neat experiment, though I’m sure we’ll never know where all this energy originally came from, or why there is something rather than nothing
Gravity sounds more like magic.Controls trillions of gallons of water but a 5 gram sparrow can beat it!!
There was no space until there was space.
I liked physics at school because I could do things, explain things around me. Until it became about those vague subjects like here, they sound like fairy tales for adults. Take a few steps back and listen to, and look at, what is presented. To me it looks like a guessing trip in the mist, really going nowhere. Where is the physics that changed the world profoundly like electricity did, isn’t there news about that kind of physics too? It would feel heart warming once in a while.
The research money has to go somewhere?
If meta-science attracts press, pr and money - shrug -
Folks have been selling snake oil for years 🙂
Video idea: Maybe you could talk about the evidence for and against the idea that time started with the big bang and the universe exists as space that was created during that bang and expanded (as opposed to the idea that we are expanding into a relatively empty portion of something and "space-time" exists outside of the "big bang residue").
Just brilliant.....
"Don't worry that they'll accidentally destroy the universe, I think it is very unlikely." !!! Somehow that is not very reassuring, Sabine.
I'm reminded of the following scene from Oppenheimer:
GROVES: Are we saying there’s a chance that when we push that button... we destroy the world?
OPPENHEIMER: Nothing in our research over the last three years supports that conclusion except as the most remote possibility.
GROVES: How remote?
OPPENHEIMER: The chances are near zero.
GROVES: Near zero?!
OPPENHEIMER: What do you want from theory alone?
GROVES: Zero would be nice.
I have started today the book by Greg Egan - Schild's ladder by pure chance :) When I saw your video's title it brought a smile to my face ;)
Hi, I'm not a professional physicist, but what's a virtual particle? An electron, a proton, a packet of energy? There is something about if borrow energy and pay it back fast enough, it's ok. But for a virtual particle to exist it has to get separated from it counterpart like what happens at the event horizon of a black hole? What about the inside of a black hole, does those a virtual particle exist? Doesn't that qualify as a big bang? Size is relative and so is time. And never mind the fact that a photon isn't keeping track of time nor aware of it.
You reset a hand warmer by boiling it in water to turn the solid back into a liquid. This looks similar to melting ice, and is heating it, so how can it be "supercooling" it? How is it possible to supercool something without special laboratory conditions (extreme pressure or temperature)?
Hmmm. Very interesting stuff. Thank you for another informative video.
Sabine is it possible that the matter in the universe is matter without time. I mean matter that absolutely does not move. we cannot measure it because we always move away from it. we cannot live without the moving time. those particles are perhaps like water we live in.
it's always good news when sabine says something is "very unlikely", at least she says it with an actual statistical understanding of "unlikely"
We will never discover how it started