The Weight of “Nothing” Could Mean Everything (to Physics)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Head to linode.com/scishow to get a $100 60-day credit on a new Linode account. Linode offers simple, affordable, and accessible Linux cloud solutions and services.
Deep in a Sardinian mine, researchers are constructing an experiment that hopes to solve what's known as The Worst Prediction In The History of Physics, and pin down the true identity of dark energy.
Hosted by: Hank Green
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Adam Brainard, Alex Hackman, Ash, Bryan Cloer, charles george, Chris Mackey, Chris Peters, Christoph Schwanke, Christopher R Boucher, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, Harrison Mills, Jaap Westera, Jason A Saslow, Jeffrey Mckishen, Kevin Bealer, Matt Curls, Michelle Dove, Piya Shedden, Rizwan Kassim, Sam Lutfi, Silas Emrys
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
TikTok: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Facebook: / scishow
#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------
Sources:
einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/in...
physicsworld.com/a/a-new-gene...
plato.stanford.edu/Archives/s...
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics...
www.britannica.com/science/Ar...
www.britannica.com/science/wa...
www.newscientist.com/article/...
www.quantamagazine.org/why-th...
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
www.theguardian.com/news/2015...
agenda.infn.it/event/14869/co...
IMAGES
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ei...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/20246
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/il...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E%...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_en...
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14358/
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12314
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12656/
Head to linode.com/scishow to get a $100 60-day credit on a new Linode account. Linode offers simple, affordable, and accessible Linux cloud solutions and services.
Look up beck protocol.
maybe ill say a smart thing, maybe ill say a stupid thing
the difference could be explained by the fact that the observable universe is smaller than the total size of the universe
and the reason the observable universe is such because light was created after a certain amount of expansion already happened in the big bang?
PLEASE get rid of the hat.... or if you HAVE TO wear it at least draw on some eyebrows.... I know this sounds like an insult but it's not meat to be. I'm just trying to tell you that you don't look right because your eyebrows are so light colored.... and people don't wear their hat backwards like this anymore, or a certain few can pull this look off these day, and you aren't one of them :?
He's also doing it with his normal energy, humour, etc etc. He is a very unique person, in my mind. I love watching his episodes
Very interesting! Most, if not all, of my physics knowledge(honestly very little) is from UA-cam. This has made me wonder something perhaps a little bonkers; would it be possible that the virtual particles/vacuum energy originate from a fourth physical dimension? And would it be possible they affect three dimensional space while they pop in and out of existence? Hopefully that makes sense😅
Scientists must’ve had a hard time funding this one. Imagine a company asking scientists what the experiment is about and they just say “we are trying to observe nothing”.
that's why grant proposals are hard. And also why a _lot-_ of this research gets done at public universities where they don't have to be trying to make money from their research.
It's an experiment about nothing.
Nothing?
Nothing.
"Hey, you know about tiny stuff not acting exactly like regular stuff? Like, it jiggles? Well, we want to jiggle the tiny stuff in such a way that some of the jiggling makes other jiggling stuff disappear. Why? Well, so when we can weigh how much the stuff that isn't there weighs."
"Request denied. And I'll just go ahead and set up a meeting with a drug councellor for you."
Nothing is impossible, but nothing is impossible.
..to specify, it's not "nothing". It's "virtually nothing".
Massive respect for still doing videos despite what you are going through👍
What are they going through?
He's finally in remission )
@@Gamer-sv2jxHe had cancer but is currently in remission ! On tiktok he talks more in depth about what’s been happening with him.
What you had gone through.
It's in remission.
@@Gamer-sv2jx He was having cancer treatment, no longer, he's in remission and officially cancer free.
I remember being in sophomore yea high school watching Hank during chemistry class. Now I’m in my senior year of Mechanical Engineering at university and still watching him. My favorite nerd
I'm proud of you dude.
I finished my PhD years ago and am watching it :)
@@PelosiStockPortfolio Also proud of you! :D
Sounds like wholesome fairytales. Prove it. lol
I gotta say, I love it when Hank gets all wound up about some crazy thing going on in physics, because it reminds me how completely tenuous our understanding is and how much it takes to even conceive of the universe.
How strange it is to be anything at all.
my head is spinning a bit but good job trying to make this information accessible to those of us without degrees in physics. it takes someone who really knows what theyre talking about to break it down enough for a broad audience
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
@@spyrodragonsbane3076 It's wise words. Though I do disagree with it being consistent and objective.
@@mischarowe In what way?
@@helloyes2288 It is very possible to understand something but not be able to formulate a description someone else may be able - or willing - to understand.
The inability of someone to grasp something isn't 100% on one side. Sometimes it's the one receiving it who just doesn't get it.
And sometimes a thing that is really complex and multi-layered just doesn't have a simple explanation - not one that takes all the nuances into account.
Who or what is to blame for the information not being able to be spread in a simple explanation is situational/subjective.
@@mischarowe I was asking what you don’t think is consistent and objective. From your reply I’m assuming you mean that people’s take on what is simple is subjective and variable? I’d argue that the spirit of the statement is true broadly since reality as we know it seems mostly governed by elegant equations corresponding to fundamental symmetries that when understood thoroughly become hard to ignore around you and easier to show to others.
One of my favourite channels, PBS Space Time, just did an excellent episode on so-called "void foam" but didn't mention this experiment so thanks very much for sharing.
Their examples of a plane over an ocean, moving closer to it, being on a large ship, and being on a rowboat was such a great way to demonstrate it for the casual scientist c:
Yes I saw both videos and together I think I finally kinda get it. It is great to learn the same topic from two great teachers.
I was headed there next lol
Attempting to weigh a vacuum is worthwhile even just to prove if it can be done. The techniques are so precise and so specific, that there is almost no way they don't lead to technological advancement (when they're allowed to have real-world levels of error).
Really appreciated this video, especially for how yall did with pushing back against the simplifications common in pop-sci.
Including things like, "virtual particles may or may not exist depending on who you ask" and "they *can* be represented 'popping into and out of' existence" is so important. Those little turns of phrase that make broad, generalized, and often factually incorrect statements about the universe bother me so much in other educational pop-sci physics, and the fact that yall do the work to be precise in your language matters a lot to me.
There was one misleading instance in this video where Hank seems to have claimed the Casimir effect means that the energy density of space is >0. This doesn't have to be the case, the Casimir effect is explainable purely by Van Der Waals forces which don't rely on any zero-point energy.
Both methods work to explain the effect so it isn't clear which is right. Or maybe both are right who knows, maybe the universe is structurally anti-real and no conceptual explanation/model can ever be true.
@@dah_bard1160there is no such thing as no-thing
@@billballinger5622 Perhaps, considering that we live in a universe that is defined as being all that exists. Nothing does not exist within the universe per the definition, and since nothing does not exist within all of existence, nothing does not exist. This is super loose logic considering that nothing isn't a thing in the first place.
The more interesting question is "What are the properties of a space devoid of any mass?". I think this question matters more than the masturbatory debate on whether nothing exists.
@@dah_bard1160 >This is super loose logic considering that nothing isn't a thing in the first place.
It's perfect logic... Science claim space is an empty vacuum... IF that was true nothing would be able to be located in it or exist within it.
>The more interesting question is "What are the properties of a space devoid of any mass?"
What are the properties of a shadow?
> I think this question matters more than the masturbatory debate on whether nothing exists.
The statement was intended to get the noggin joggin, you're the one who mentally masturbated over it
@@dah_bard1160love your response. Philosophical discussion on concept whether there is such thing as nothing is only valuable up to the point where it inspires a physicist to research absence of something (vaccuum in this case), painter to creatively paint emptiness, psychologist to analyze apathy, poet or writer to inspire others further and so on.
Just because nothing technically exists by how we describe absence, doesn't make stating the opposite insightful because, yeah, technically there's also always something. But right now we're discussing specific absence of xyz, not whether the description or label makes sense.
Just now I noticed Bill was being playful with words and I believe we took him too seriously. There is no such thing as no-thing because nothing itself says it's not a thing. Just light fun, not a discussion or debate. Sorry, Bill.
physics updates like this are super fun to hear about
would love an update on the experiment when it happens
Amazing how important nothing can be.
Turn to Jesus and repent.
@@MonkeyJedi99Turn to Jesus and repent! He loves us!
@@an8nymous791not everyone's a Christian. Bot.
@@an8nymous791 Why would that skilled electrician down the street care about me repenting to him?
The thing I love about bleeding edge physics is the way every question answered opens another one.
Like, if this works and they don't have weight, then we need to figure out why. 😊
While I think you meant to say "leading edge", "bleeding edge" sounds more savage. Cool.
@@thehellyousayno, bleeding edge is correct. Leading edge isn't the correct phrase. :)
@@Rainlitnightcutting edge works as well
I thought bleeding edge was more "advanced" than cutting edge? Like, bleeding edge is to cutting edge, what cutting edge is to everything else?
It'll be even more frustrating if they do have weight, and just as much as you'd expect them to have if they acted like normal particles.
Then we'd still be at a loss to explain why the universe isn't ripping apart.
This is the best science communication I’ve ever seen. You took this incredibly complex topic and broke it down in a way that was easy for me to understand.
To see more great science communication see the ORIGINAL cosmos with Carl Sagan. You won't be disappointed.
@@jeanettemarkley7299 Richard Feynman, Brian Cox, Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Ed Copeland, Michael Merrifield, and Dr. Becky are all also great science communicators. That list could have a dozen more names, I'm sure, but those are the ones I know off the top of my head (I don't include NDT because I find him absolutely insufferable, although he's probably been a net positive for science communication)
Bravo Hank my mother lost her battle with cancer and i am so happy to hear that you have beaten it. The world is a better place with you in it
This was a GREAT one. Can only imagine all the research it took. Great job team!!
hey you're cool
Other than the newest info about the experiment, and the foam hypothesis, I had learned all of this about a decade ago to prepare for running a sci-fi tabletop game.
Our group is SUPER nerdy!
They really are awesome. They always manage to explain incredibly complex concepts so that even a dummy like me can grasp them. And any occasional inaccuracies are so minor they hardly matter, unlike most channels.
There's tens of thousands of popsci channels, of which 99% are pure bunk so it can be difficult to find the few good ones.
Fortunately, quality creators tend to follow eachother so that makes them a bit easier to find. It's how I found this channel.
@@VikingTeddy while we’re talking creator co-signs, Angela Collier is also making awesome scicom videos lately
+
This episode was even better than most, and SciShow episodes are ALWAYS good! I've also got to say that I found it hilarious when Hank said, "We're going quantum." Not only because of how he said it, but it reminded me of how Terry Pratchett threw the term into some of his Discworld novels - like, "I don't know, but it's probably something to do with 'quantum '". 😂
Ponder Stibbons has thoughts.
@@qwertyTRiG Hex has thoughts. Ponder is just the secretary taking dictation ...😏
@@thehellyousay Yup! 🤣🤣🤣
I love to appreciate that Einstein was so humble he would openly call out his own BS results but also so brilliant that even his BS results end up being true ❤
He was also a raging misogynist and wife abuser, and his wives contributed heavily to his work without receiving any credit so maybe don’t glorify him too much. All “great” men in history were only great by extorting the women in their lives.
@@enbyfairyyy okay well I agree that he was a raging misogynist and wife abuser. Where are your sources that his wife helped his research? because there is no evidence that I can find.
I've never heard that he was abusive, and certainly his wives didn't contribute to his work. His 1st wife there is dispute if she helped because some of Einstein's letters use the word "our" instead of "I". But there is no record of his wife writing any letter discussing physics or helping him or anything of the sort. There is one serbian man from her village who said he heard them discuss physics. His 2nd wife was not college educated.
As far as his misogynistic letter to his 1st wife, I'm not so sure. In a time when women getting jobs outside the home was difficult and especially with children, this may have been a compromise to just kicking her out. Maybe horrid by today's standards but we live in a different world.
He also promised her and gave her the million dollars from his Nobel. A significant amount of money in the 1920's, she was able to live out the remainder of her life off the interest alone.
Something this video missed is that they plan on using YBCO superconductors as the disks, thus the requirement for everything to remain near liquid nitrogen temperatures.
Of concern here is that the expected weight change (per m=E/c^2 ) for a 1 K temperature change in a 55g YBCO disk around 100 K is the same magnitude as the signal they are expecting (mass of 1E-16 kg). The Archimedes Experiment paper on the ArXiv does not explain how they solve for this, other than saying ~'controlling the amount of heat flux to the samples will be important'.
Hank! You may or may not see this comment. Whatever. The thought I want counted here is this:
Thank you for being a huge pillar for science learning. Since I been watching sci show as tee (2011), back then this channel renewed my hype for science, and it continues to add to my forever love, for science. So glad you won vs the cancer and I truly hope for the best as in never seing you face it again!
Youre awesome. A genuine person just inpiring others with dicipline, love, and hard work. Happy to see you more often again!
I wanna second this (since 2014, remember the three fish? 😂) cause I learned more from this channel than I ever thought I’d know.
Hank and all the folks are incredibly passionate and fun people to listen to and learn from, and they’ve expanded my own world by light years, and lots more that I don’t need to all dump here.
I’m beyond grateful to them for everything.
This comment made me realize I’ve been watching SciShow for a full decade now
I’m so old
Virtual particles are just the unlit pixels in the universe simulation. They only pop into and out of existence because the devs used a rubbish power supply.
scanning bleed through due to noise.
Eh? I don’t see the analogy
Maybe they ARE the devs 😲
Its the refresh rate of the universe 😂
@@TheSkyGuy77 the refresh rate of the universe is the time required for light to travel Planck's Distance. 5.39×10−44 seconds.
My husband did his PhD on the Casimir effect. It’s also how geckoes manage to climb on the ceiling! They have tiny, tiny skin fractals which makes the surface of their hands and feet able to get close enough to the wall surface to use the Casimir-effect to carry their weight upside down
Dear God. Are you ... I mean, is he sure? Not a suction-cup effect on a very tiny scale?
@@CL-go2ji Geckos are known to use the Van der Waals force, and apparently that is related to the Casimir effect.
I am so glad to see Hank back, feeling better and doing SciShow videos again.
Hank green has been a huge inspiration for my liking of science and I hope nothing but good things come by him!
"Matter can't be created or destroyed.... Except for when it can. And does. Maybe. Disguised as nothingness. And undetectable. It's complicated. Just trust me, Bro." - Quantum Physicist
You're thinking of pop-sci. The actually science makes more sense, but is more complicated, so is ignored.
They're actually mostly referring to the phenomena of virtual particles
Read up on quantum field theory. In our universe, there is no such thing as "nothing". There are quantum fields embedded into space time. An electron and a positron can annihilate, and what you get is a photon.
The bill always comes due, just not necessarily as the original particles.
@@jakublizon6375Those are some very strong words for a theory.
Nothing is wrong with believing in it and there may even be some truth in it but many past theories have turned out to be wrong such as the geocentric model of the universe.
@@Derekzpartytheories will never be completely correct, but we can get closer to what reality is; i get your point but this really is as much as we can do with our current knowledge/technology until someone finds the problem with the current theories
Didn't know he had cancer, and I wish him and his family a full recovery. Facing your mortality really puts things in perspective, something i think the whole world needs right now.
Attempting to weigh nothing is quite a weighty challenge! Excellent video, thank you.
Happy Remission my man, It's good to see ya!
I absolutely understand both more and less about the universe than I did before, in that I now know more how much I do not know. Great episode!
For those wondering about Hank's cap: he wears it because he's an unbelievably cool guy. Thus, the cool guy backwards cap.
Big thumbs up for the video 👍 The presentation explained the theory, hypothesis, and basic experimental design extremely well. Thanks for all the efforts from the team at Sci Show!
What a wonderful video! Any boater who’s noticed how their small boat draws oddly close to nearby vertical walls when the water is choppy has felt a version of the Casimir effect. The choppy area has more energy - more little waves whacking one side of the boat - than the narrow, quiet, secluded pool between the boat and the wall. That push towards the wall is the Casimir effect, just with real waves and real energy harvesting - the waves lose a bit of intensity - replacing the virtual-only quantum waves.
Notably, on days when the water is quiet, the push disappears.
Dip a closed Venetian blind into the choppy water, close to the wall and parallel to it, and you can feel the push yourself. Open the slats of the blind, however, and the gentle push disappears. The waves pass through and make the water equally choppy on both sides, eclipsing the push.
That is the Archimedes Experiment.
This is a wonderful and deeply worthwhile experiment. However, its odds of success declined sharply in 2020 when careful studies of extreme cosmic gamma rays [1] showed detectable vacuum energy waves to be at least 1800 times smaller than the nominal hard “Planck scale” postulated by the amazing John Archibald Wheeler.
Even without the results of the Archimedes Experiment, the evidence thus already leans powerfully towards a level of spacetime smoothness vastly beyond the chunky, clunky, aether-like graininess of Wheeler’s quantum foam and its string-theory and loop-gravity offshoots.
The irony is that Einstein, not Wheeler, is the one who most seems to have gotten it right: There is _no_ texture to empty space, regardless of the energies involved. Clunky, classically inspired, aether-like foams, strings, and loops need not apply.
The answer to this riddle lies elsewhere.
----------
[1] A. Albert et al. (HAWC Collaboration), _Constraints on Lorentz invariance violation from HAWC observations of gamma rays above 100 TeV,_ Physical Review Letters *124,* 131101 (2020).
Would a quantum spacetime foam imply a violation of Lorentz invariance? I had assumed that any theory of spacetime foam would be Lorentz invariant...
@drdca8263 asks: “Would a quantum spacetime foam imply a violation of Lorentz invariance?”
Imagine someone giving you a sheet of the most perfect glass in the universe, one that is not only perfectly transparent index but has the same index of refraction as the vacuum or (roughly) air. You can hold the sheet and toss it in the air, but you’d better toss it carefully since you won’t see it again until it hits something. (Fortunately, it’s also very tough and doesn’t break easily.)
A spaceship zips by at 99.5% of the speed of light just as you toss the glass in the air. Madison, the pilot, looks for your sheet but sees nothing. She cannot tell your sheet of glass from one she holds in front of her on the ship since both give _no_ indication of where they are. Madison finds this inability to identify who owns which sheet of glass fascinating and calls it Lorentz invariance after the brilliant condensed matter physicist Loretta Lorentz, who invented the glass. Lorentz invariance, in a nutshell, says that _no one_ can tell who owns any of these pieces of glass, no matter how they are moving.
Curmudgeon and experimentalist that you are, you decide on a new test: You pull out your handy Planck Blowtorch and heat your sheet of glass until it glows, then toss it in the air again.
Madison phones you and says, “HHHHHHHHH…” Sorry, I forgot to correct the tenfold time dilation: “Hank! I can see your sheet now! How did you break Lorentz invariance for your piece of glass?”
You say, “Madison, it was easy! I merely heated it with my Planck Blowtorch until it glowed brightly! The heat also blistered the surface, making the glass even more visible. I’m calling the combination glowing radiation and local texture Planck Foam, and wow… it does a great job of breaking Lorentz invariance!”
----------
Special relativity’s most profound and essential lesson is not what folks think. We tend to focus on how odd it is that a ship can shrink and its clocks slow without those on the ship seeing any difference, but the most remarkable principle is that the _medium_ in which ships and clocks move cannot give any clues about what is going on. If the medium reveals itself, every moving observer need only look at it to determine their state of motion.
As with Hank’s manipulation of the piece of glass, you can add energy to this otherwise invisible medium to make it do tricks. Thus, by using the blowtorch of electric field energy inside an atom, you can make this invisible medium cough up, ever so briefly, pairs of negative and positive electrons that blur the charge of the atomic nucleus. Near the surface of a small but intense gravitational body, you can _curve_ this invisible medium enough for strain energy to produce the asymmetric particle pairs called Hawking radiation. The shared feature of these two cases is the addition of energy from some well-defined collection of mass and energy - that is, from a _known_ inertial entity. Without that known entity and its well-defined inertial frame, nothing happens.
The trickiest and most interesting case for this invisible medium is this: How does a photon - a quantized pulse of electromagnetic energy - manage to travel across the universe _without_ some aether-like medium in which to travel? That is why the aether was first proposed in the 1800s: as a medium through which light and other wavelike radiation can travel.
Quantum field theory attempts to solve this problem not by adhering strictly to Einstein’s disturbing revelation but by creating an aether so incredibly fine-grained - perhaps infinitely fine-grained - that _every_ wave, regardless of frequency or intensity, passes through it with identical ease. It only takes a few mathematical tricks of tilting the angles of space and time to make such an aether give the same results that Einstein predicted, so why bother with _truly_ giving up the aether? In often carefully phrased language, many expected that in time and with high enough energies, Einstein’s more radical aether-free version of special relativity would fail.
It did not. That Einstein was a clever fellow.
By definition, the answer to Einstein’s still-lingering mystery of how to construct a genuinely aether-free universe cannot be some almost infinitely large network of clunky resonators - strings, loops, Planck foam vibrations, whatever. Instead, it necessarily resides in some deeper unraveling of what words like “space” and “time” even mean.
@@TerryBollinger I think this “oh, is it a medium, or is it just the geometry” thing seems to be...
kind of a story-brain kind of thing?
Also, you don’t seem to have answered my question?
I am asking: Why would it be that, in any theory with a spacetime foam, that if you took the theory and applied a Lorentz transformation to the coordinates, you would get something different?
I would have expected the opposite.
I am, of course, aware that any system which has some regular spacetime grid, will, after applying a Lorentz transformation, look different. You can’t really have really quantized (in the sense of having a discrete set of possible values, not just, “quantum mechanical”) position, while having Lorentz invariance.
But one can have a probability distribution over ways to decorate spacetime (e.g. scattering points throughout it) such that while any particular sample from it is of course not Lorentz invariant, the probability distribution over them is Lorentz invariant.
So, I don’t see why the vacuum state couldn’t be Lorentz invariant even if it was described by a linear combination of things that were not.
@@drdca8263wow, _nice…_ It’s way too late to answer this evening, but I’ll go over your comments carefully tomorrow to see if you nailed me. The superposition argument is _excellent…_ hmm, tomorrow!
could you clarify your first paragraph, im confused: the "choppy area" is the side of the boat facing the open water? Or is the same side of the boat that has the "narrow, quiet, secluded pool between the boat and the wall"..?
if its the second point, are we talking about that small amount of time, when the boat is JUST approaching a nearby wall, creating this Casimir effect, and then how it gradually became a little bit quiet and then secluded...?
Hank Green is a legend
he really was. RIP
Sir. You have changed my understanding of reality over these many years. You are a great educator. On par with the greatest educators of human history. You found an extensive medium and put forth a vast amount of pure truth. For this, you are immortal.❤
I hope you make a follow up video once the experiment is completed and published!
You should have called this "Much a-due about nothing." But there might be copyright issues. Well done... as usual.
Shakespeare has been dead since before copyright even existed.
There wouldn't be copyright issues as it is Shakespeare and was written in Elizabethan times, so is now out of copyright.
@@jurassicape822 --The spelling doesn't matter because we all knew what they were talking about anyway.-- WOPS
@@jurassicape822 My spell checker tagged that spelling as wrong. The spelling I used instead was OK.
Hank you’re looking so much better glad to see you looking healthy, sci show wouldn’t be the same without you!💜
What I never quite got is: positive energy curves spacetime. Vacuum energy is normal virtual particles. So its positive energy? Why would it cause the universe to expand rather than contract?
There is a fantastic documentary called
“Everything and Nothing “ in the end if you have a jar of nothing vacuum. Slow time enough and you would see particles appear from nothing and then disappear. It’s really good.
If Hank is the one doing the video, I'm watching it. He's by FAR my absolute favorite UA-cam personality. Love ya, Hank! God bless you! Keep up the good fight, my man!!💪
Great to see you Hank, hope your staying strong and glad to hear things are moving the right way for you.
Thanks for sharing knowledge and being an all round excellent human being Hank. Hope you're better soon.
For a historical corollary to "virtual particles" (in the event that they don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are nevertheless useful for accurate model construction), one can think of these like the ubiquitous and now often maligned "epicycles" of planetary motion when models of the solar system were built using perfect circles (that Aristotelian physics and metaphysics butting its head), but when the models didn't match the observations, model builders introduced epicycles, where a planet rotated about a circle while rotating around circle. Eventually, this ended up with the now maligned, "epicycles upon epicycles upon epicycles." Interestingly, despite a shift in model construction, the newer models weren't immediately as accurate as the absurdly epicycle centric models had gotten.
In the same way, we can think of "virtual particles" as a model construct, a convenient placeholder for some phenomena we don't fully understand and are guessing at what it might "actually" "be" (in the metaphysical sense), and by doing so (metaphysics aside), these handy prediction/computation aids can help improve the accuracy of our models in one of their key objectives - prediction.
This whole (is it "real" vs "a useful model for prediction") situation is a fundamental component of both philosophy, the philosophy of science, and the history if science-and despite what some curmudgeonly Western analytic philosophers/scientists of the 20th century (logical positivists) claimed, this "what is it?" question is a fundamental and necessary part of the larger framework of science. Namely, despite what some people claim, you can't do natural philosophy (science) without at least some general philosophy because the philosophy helps give others sense of what in the universe you're talking about-bounding your discourse within comprehensible limits (as is the case for all areas of study).
As an amusing sidenote, epicycles do work and can be used to reconstruct any orbit. (Including one that traces out Home Simpson's face: ua-cam.com/video/QVuU2YCwHjw/v-deo.html ) Knowledge of this is behind a lot of audio and video compression techniques.
@@garethdean6382 and, if you potentially take enough of them, where the number of epicycles for accuracy -> ∞, you're effectively taking either the instantaneous differential or integral of the orbit. 🤣
It seems to me like it's not the "virtual" part where the confusion lies, it's the "particle" part. (Actively resisting going into a Marx Brothers routine here). Particles aren't "things" in quantum mechanics, they're disturbances in the underlying quantum fields - waves that we only see by their impact when they crash into other waves. In that context a virtual particle is just a very short-lived wave that we can't observe by normal means.
I might be misinformed but I have read that converting virtual particles (or virtual photons at least) to real ones is fairly commonplace - it is more or less how lightbulbs work. So their existence in some sense is not controversial, but there may be better models out there for describing what exactly they are.
I love how Hank's shirt is like graph paper. But, it's not expanding.
Long time fan of Hank. Interesting to learn we had/have the same type of cancer. I've been in remission for 3 years. Best wishes Hank!
Good presentation! Thanks for sharing
I hope you're doing well Hank. Thank you for all the videos.
How are Virtual Particles effected by Observer's?
they aren't; they don't exist for long enough.
Because they only, ‘observe’ each other
@@thekaxmax I mean maybe that's why there is an Observer effect. Because of Virtual Particle existing and maybe helping give properties?
Now I understand what vacuum fluctuations are. And that time and energy are part of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as are not knowing the speed or position of a particle.After about 30 years of casual learning about this stuff.
You rock good sir! Do indeed carry on!
Great video as always. I really hope that your treatment is going well and you will be fully recovered soon. We are all rooting for you and wishing you all the best for the future. Live long and prosper.
Take care and stay safe,
Joe
This is the best video y'all've made in a while. I absolutely love this kind of deep dive.
Hank man, love your content and your strength buddy. My fiancée knows you by name just cause I tell her about stuff I’ve learned about you.
Love you man, keep on keeping on FOREVER!!!!!🎉
Glad to see you back, Hank. Your enthusiasm reminded me of your first videos.
Thank you for explaining how the experiment works in a simple enough way for me to understand.
Thank you for being such an amazing channel and doing the hard work of bringing to the general public news about science and the mysteries of the universe ❤️
I've been reading about many of these concepts for years and now, finally, I think I understand some of the connections. Hank, you explain things so, so well!!
Loved it! Great refresher and exciting news!
Cool. I dig the idea. Hope they have success, no matter which way the experiment goes.
Love you Hank!! You are awesome. I am very happy to see you not letting the cancer beat you. For showing the rest of us there is life after cancer. Thank you.
Nobody "lets" cancer beat them, or does "not let" cancer beat them. The action takes place at the molecular and cellular level where human volition doesn't matter.
Thank you Hank , I appreciate that you try to make very intricate things a little simpler for us not so able to see it , gosh , I wish I could grasp these concepts without my head trying to implode lol , but if you keep trying so will I , love you man 💯
All the best Jules 😘
Thanks! I really appreciate your talent, of taking COMPLICATED subjects, and dumbing them down, so even I get it!
Oof I didn’t realize this was a new upload hello other unintentionally early people 👁️ 👄 👁️
Howdy
Hello! I got here at 69 likes
Glad to see you back on. 🌻
So good to see you back in the saddle, Hank, cap and all! Welcome back!
Do vacuum energy also exist in biological cells? If so the possibility that there might be proteins that can detect and/or exploit such nuanced changes is exciting.
vacuum energy is everywhere. The forces involved in biology are too energy-dense and too high a scale to be usefully effected by vacuum energy. Plus, what information could be gained? No reason to evolve a detector means we don't get a detector.
@@Panthermouse What mechanism could be used by a biological system for an effect we need a building and tons of equipment to detect, and what use would a biological system get for detecting background energy that has no effect below the solar system scale?
If you want a supposition to get to hypothesis you need a mechanism and observation. So far there is nothing.
Not I'm curious as to how much the universe could weight as a whole.
At LEAST 12 grams!
Weight is a relative thing so it would depend on where you put the scale 🙃
You are gifted delivering complex concepts in very accessible ways. Props.
Talking about weighing virtual particles and spacetime foam gets to the point in physics where I have to wonder...just, in general, I guess.
I want to know about nothing.. bcs that's my future
Very cool video. Good use of descriptors and explanations
Praying to all the weightless matter your days are filled with joy. Your videos are loved by me and my family. Thank you for adding love to the world and not hate.
The place I come to for up-to-date science corrections and confessionals. So good! #hooked
Good to see you and hear you. Looking and sounding good.
This was extremely well explained, all the way from everyday understanding of physics to the details of this experiment
It's so good to see Hank here again! Welcome back!
Live life to the fullest! Great video just like your vibe you're such an amazing person I'm wishing you all the best!
Glad to see you host, hope you are doing well. You are still the best so far in this scishow
Welcome back! ^^ You are awesome!
Absolutely fascinating, thank you for explaining this
My Friend, You Have Got Balls Of Steel And You Have My Deepest & Sincerest Admiration. Greater Good Embrace You, Hank Green. And Thank You For Everything You Do, Truly.
This was so interesting! I love learning about this and I always will.
Doooood. Have heard detailed explanations for expansion of the universe, virtual particles, the Casimir Effect, etc. ad nauseam in my time, but Hank, have to say your explanations here are tip top! Thank you!!! Wish everyone could hear it like this! 👍
Hell yeah hank, happy for u buddy, u do amazing work
Amazing video. Thanks!
Great to see you back in action man :)
This was a really great video, and Hank, my brother in Sagan, *you* are looking great!
I'm very happy to see your short about the cancer remission. Wtg, bro. I'm glad u r healthy 💛
Good seeing you Hank!
Glad to see you back Hank.
Hey man thanks for your videos. I'm praying for you.
Funny how we went from "Space is an medium" to "Space is nothing" and now back to "Space isn't Empty"
Congrats on getting through it!
I watched the entire Linode ad in respect to the beauty of the video!
This is actually synchronicity that this Archimedes experiment and my own "Anomaly of Sight" experiment use the same mathematician as reference. Former using his name and the latter using pi.
Been watching scishow since 10+ years ago in high school and even now in higher education Hank’s voice is still reassuring
Love you shows keep it up:)
I'm still stuck on the idea that the researchers aren't sure that the Casimir effect works in the material they're using. Wouldn't that be the very first thing to confirm before spending a lot of time and money building the balance beam device?
> If we can measure a Gravitational Wave smaller than a neutron, then we can do this.
Thank you guys, I've been watching this channel for 5 years now
Thanks for making it UNDERSTANDABLE THANK YOU
Happy to see you doing well hank ❤