Conor OConnor - Look into Cognitive Bias. Very important. We should _all_ be mandatorily learning about it in grade 7. Especially, Science, politicians, lawyers & _Law enforcement officials_ & military personal! Your welcome for your next rabbit hole adventure. *Hugz
Discoveries create more questions create more research create more discoveries. All claims require evidence all evidence must be testable and repeatable. All assertions are only based in known discoveries not unknown undiscovered untested realities. Therefore, all research is infinitely constant.
Ey, there is a easy solution to this! Ignore the trending page. I'm doing it since it's inception and neither have I bullshit recommends nor do I have to see all the different faces "creating" the same "content"
+PBSSpaceTime it is incredible that you are able to boil down and explain complex cosmological topics in a way a layman can understand. What's more incredible is that you don't need crazy CGI, but actually go into some detail about the theoretical equations and scientific experiments that support those conclusions without dumbing down the actual information. Please do not stop making this content.
The fact that you can see interference just with your fingers just blew my mind! Thank you for that. I'm going to have to share that with people and then have them not care and think and I'm crazy
@Things I Like Journalist studies are only political and semi-religious brainwash (read about the Mouseland metaphore at Wikipedia) . So what do you expect? There is zero science training in journalist education .
I have to say, this video is among the crowning jewels of PBS spacetime stuff, purely from the perspective of of the quality of analysis and explanation. Great stuff
This is wonderful! I recently had a discussion with my nephew... he told me that science isn't always right, that science can be wrong. He's right, but it seemed to be an excuse to disregard science, so I responded, "That's true, but what do you use to disprove it?" He got kind of quiet, then muttered, "...science." Then we had a chat about how science is a process, a tool rather than a thing of its own. We talked about evidence, and how new ideas are welcome. I'm hoping it was a positive thing.
Laynie Fingers science is all theories. Its a way we try to understand, phenomenons that we dont understand. I think we know less than 0.0000001% of what there is to know out there. We dont even know how Gravity works.. or Light.. or Atoms.. its all theories
Amin That sounds like sudo science.... where did you get this figure from, hardly scientific... light and atoms are pretty well understood, so is how gravity works.... Theories can be tested, which gives us confidence... Guess work and saying it is all just theories is not very helpful to an inquisitive young mind.
It’s definitely a gross oversimplification and misleading to say the universe is flat. From the macro -> the micro (from the large to the small), literally nothing in this universe is truly "flat". Not even the thinnest, lightest sheet of paper is flat. We live in a multi dimensional universe where that is meaningless and a PHYSICAL impossibility.
Cian McCabe Good question. However, Membrane Theory/M-Theory aka Superstring Theory still exists within the multi-dimensional space-time continuum that is itself formed & sustained by the omnipresent quantum "vacuum" field of energy fluctuations, as described by Quantum Mechanics. String Theory still requires our universe- to the best of our current scientific understanding-to exist as a multi-dimensional manifold... again making "flat" or "flatness" an absolute impossibility.
Kids: I’m going to die if you don’t give me another cookie Doctor: that kid is going to get fat and die if you let them eat all the cookies they want The cookies are flat. who to trust...
Another thing that occurs to me - if dark energy speeds expansion up and gravity/energy/matter slow expansion down, doesn't a constant expansion speed imply _some_ dark energy - enough to counteract the gravity side of the equation at least?
Not a physicist here. I think constant expansion at a constant rate might not imply dark energy because it would technically be the initial expansion force expanding the verse. Thats why people thought the universe expanding would slow down as the force just kinda peters out, and even keeping its initial expansion rate would be... understandable but expanding at an ACCELERATING RATE?An expanding universe at an accelerating rate implies something is adding to that outward push.
A rare RUclips science video that is both clear, and doesn't talk down to us, but instead trusts the audience to have the Intelligence to figure out the topic at hand. Just what I want.
i used to get pissed off that i couldnt cast a solid shadow puppet with a flash light if i was too close to it.... little did i know that same behavior, extrapolated, shows us so much about the world/universe. yay human curiosity!
Vaibhav Gupta Recently dutch physicist published a paper claiming that he found a modified version of gravity that would make dark energy as well as dark matter obsolete. And well the internet is going nuts about it
Wow! 15:20 You can see diffraction lines when you look through a gap in your fingers when you hold them really close together! I've just done it and you can see them clearly! Why didn't I know this before‽
No the model of the universe is flat, however it's actually layers of magnetic lines of force connecting each planet to every other planet, sun, etc... in the universe... They even found "portals" along these lines of force that act and move faster than light... the effect is seen from lines of force coming from our sun, I read an article about it awhile back. They found particles moving faster than they "should" i.e. faster than light.
Whoa! That "two fingers in front of your eye" thing... it works. I've done that before, and I've noticed the bands, but I always figured that had to do with my eye having trouble focusing at that distance.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I've seen it before but I thought that was simply my finger I was seeing since eyes can't focus on something that close. Are we sure we are doing it correctly? Should we only be seeing the dark bands near our fingers?
Yes. The bands tend to become less pronounced the more they are distant from the surface/finger. Kind of strange isn't it. Have you tried it with one finger. It is fainter and more difficult to see but still works. Keep in mind wave behaviour, and it is easier to understand. Even with just the one finger.
So I don't know if you were planning on covering this but I'd love to see discussion of magnetic monopoles, in terms of whether or not they exist outside of mathematics, what the implications (in terms of physics and how it might change technology) of monopoles existing or not existing would be. I'd also love it if you could cover the concept of magmatter or monopolium or whichever term people want to use for it, and all that.
2:22 - this is a great example of something that worries me in all of science. Here they admit that they are invested in their playlist, and don't want to delete it. This is analogous to scientists with things like Nobel prizes, careers and papers written. They are invested in not accepting new data as they have lots to lose by it. Just an observation.
Just because a theory ends up proven wrong doesn't mean its mention should be wiped off history. It's important to know all the approaches that have been taken and failed if one is to know where not to go.
Scientists are still human and the sunk cost fallacy can still get to them, but what really makes a good scientist is being able to recognize that type or thought or emotional conflict in yourself and reconcile that with the actual results you are getting from your experiments.
I have just finished watching almost the entire video library on PBS Space Time. My head hurts, but in a very good way. I want to thank you guys for the amazing work you do. That doesn't mean I understand almost ANY of what I've just watched. The part that I love is that my mind has been challenged, and for that, I thank you. (Advil time.)
Why do I keep coming to have my brain liquidated? Watched a couple hours worth of these the last couple days and it's really expanding on a lot of what I read back in the '00s on the topic.
This is why I love science.. it is true humility to allways be ready to have been wrong... to let the observable and measurable things speak and regard humans as those who want to learn and discover and play around whith theories... and test it out to see if a theory actually are stable or if it can be broken by other observations... science are where truth grows and grows and continues to exite and amaze humans❤️
Actually, serious question this time... If the universe was curved, wouldn't it and everything in it, including light, and us, be distorted in such a way that these huge triangles would appear flat to us? Like the inhabitants of Flatland were their 2D universe wrapped around the surface of a ball? If we're curved in a higher spatial dimension, how could we, as three dimensional beings, ever perceive that?
Actually no! Think about it this way: if you measure the angles of a triangle on the surface of the Earth (assuming you live on a 2-dimensional space that is the surface of the earth) you will find out (entirely 2-dimensionally) that the angles sum up to more than 180 degrees! Think about 2 points on the equator (farily distant) and 1 point on the north pole. You would draw a line that lies on the equator that connects the 2, and then 2 meridian lines that connect each point with the north pole. Since equator is perpendicular to all meridians, both angles on the equator are exactly 90 degrees. Then you have to add up the third angle at the north pole, which is bigger than zero, so you get 180 degrees plus the third angle. There you go, perfect proof that the surface of the earth is curved without ever considering the 3 dimensions!
You are correct, and it does, but the ball (or the screen) is so big that we will never get information that has gone all the way around the backside and come back into play. Our whole observable part of the universe has a curvature of something like less than .4%, so the ball is at least 250 times larger than than anything we will ever see. Actually, it is probably a torus, donut-shaped like a multi-dimensional smoke ring expanding from the initial big bang explosion, but either way our little patch of it is almost "flat" for practical purposes. Imagine living on a giant donut that is constantly growing faster than you can run. You will never be able to do a lap around it. Basically, that's the shape of the situation in the universe. Compared to that, our galaxy is just a little speck of the sugar coating on the surface. Enjoy the sweet life :)
animist channel actually if you keep running and it keeps growing the part behind you is growing too so if you run for long enough you CAN get all the way around. Picture a clock hand ticking slowly while the entire clock grows and grows. (that's actually a poor analogy since the arc covered per tick accelerates significantly, maybe an ant crawling around a clock is better)
Oops I forgot, there was an article on physorg recently about a possible new theory of gravity that explain the universe without needing dark matter, could you do a show about it?
SlyPearTree Interesting... I'm not understanding why gravitational force would change over distance like that other than tailoring an explanation to fit the observations, but it is an interesting hypothesis.
What if the universe actually is hyperbolic or more likely curved, but dark energy is only able to accelerate the universe to a point where it is observed as flat and another undiscovered force or constant is preventing it from either going over or less than that acceleration. Almost as if there was an anti-big rip mechanism (force) counteracting dark energy, much like there is some weird force that causes light to stay at a specific speed.
I'm not an expert, but I think that it's even more unlikely than you think. We know about how much dark matter there is and from there about how much dark energy, and then when you use the friedmann equations that gives you expansion. Basically we can observe effects of dark energy/matter on galaxies and things and predict what that would do to the galaxy. That being said, we don't actually know if the universe is accelerating expansion, so your theory could be true but in the opposite way :).
+JMEssex we literally measured the curvature of the observable universe. It appears to be quite flat. So either it's so large that our observable universe isn't big enough to notice how curved it is or it's definitely flat.
At 8:26 It is mentioned that the universe in the red circle has almost no matter in it whereas the graph shows this universe has almost no dark matter in it. It's a different interpretation altogether which assumes that there is dark matter.
Exactly! There are new indications and a 2020 update to the 2016 paper that caused this video.. And it turns out that the Nobel Prize winners supernova study not only had a meager sample size but as the updated paper shows, all of the supernovas in the original study were in 1 half of the sky and almost all of the shifts can be exampled by the movement of our local dipole movement of our local galactic group/solar system as it spins around the center of Milky Way. There may not be any Dark Energy and Dark Matter may be radically different in composition and scope than previously thought or may not exist at all (MOND)
Has anyone considered the possibility that the curvature of the universe might not be constant? Typically, there are three geometrical scenarios postulated for the shape of the universe: open, flat or closed. However, since the curvature at any given point in the continuum is a result of the local changes to the shape of the "fabric" of space-time itself due to masses of nearby objects and thermodynamic effects, the concept of a variable curvature is introduced. Hence, the curvature of the universe as whole could very well be indeterminate.
The universe was weird shaped curves, it would be very unstable and wobbly, and it's not. The shapes predicted are predicted as such because they are stable, not cause Scientists have OCD. The flat universe or Spherical universe theories are the most stable, followed by the parabolic and the donut/croissant shape. Other shapes are possible, but something "wiggly" and different shaped all over would probably lead to extreme erratic and weird distortions of gravity and distant light we simply don't see. In fact, those things are so smooth from our observation, it's one of the main reason modern scientist think the flat universe theory is true. I personally have a strong lean towards the "croissant' shape universe, because that is the shape of energy massing around black holes, which I (and many scientist) think may be linked to the creation of universes. However, most of these things are extremely theoretical, since we have so little of the universe to look at to determine it's shape. The "Observable universe" stretching out around 14 billion light years from us is estimated by some to be as small as 0.01% of the universe. (Others estimate it as large as 20% or more though) So for all we know it's so large we can't even begin to see it's overall shape.
Yes Space is flat, but space-time is not. Mass bends space-time around it. this is why time progresses at a slower rate near earth than it does where we place satellites. Without this concept "gps just doesn't work". Now some thing to think about is: time is a variable based on gravitational pull and velocity. So lets put a way to measure time any where. 1 second on earth is slower than 1 second in orbit. Only around 36 microseconds but you could still say that the value of 1 second on earth has greater value than one second in orbit. Just as if time were money and you were exchanging different currencies. Velocity = change in distance over time, when you increase the value of the bottom of a fraction the overall number goes down and visa-versa. So the velocity and acceleration of an object way out in space would appear to be going faster and accelerating change in time^2 for that than they really are. Granted, 0 velocity and acceleration is still 0 when thinking about it this way. But, nothing ever really has 0 velocity or acceleration in this universe because any object has to be at 0 kelvin in order to be not be moving. If this is true then the speed of light is still constant but it may appear to go faster or slower in parts of the universe. This could account for the red-shifting. But, maybe they did already take this into account when they made their analysis. I haven't actually read the reports.
Centrifuge Cities... I can't get over the thought of people living in spinning cities, on a spinning planet, in a spinning solar system, in a spinning galaxy and.... I'm dizzy just thinking about it.
1. Why do we hear so little about dark flow? 2. Why is it not considered there is somthing we cant see beyond the observable horizon that accounts for the "missing matter" problem?
Because they can estimate the mass off the matter outside of the observable edge, and it still comes out to be not even close to enough matter in the world
I would think dark flow isn't said much for two reasons. One, we can't make claims about it since we don't know why it exists really, and two the media hasn't picked up on it probably because of the first reason mostly. It is considered there is matter outside of the horizon, but since we can see effects of matter around us on other matter, and it only affects nearby matter significantly, we can figure out average matter density for the observable universe. It is probable that the unobservable universe is pretty close to that, as long as the big bang theory is employed, since all matter was approximately equally dense everywhere and expanded equally. In any case, the missing matter problem would not be solved by normal matter for a few reasons. One, matter only works on nearby matter unless it has ridiculous mass. It is very unlikely something larger than all observed normal matter exists outside of our view. Even if it did, it is very clear that specific galaxies are being affected differently and it isn't on a gradient like that would suggest. Even if it were spread out, you would expect to see fringe galaxies affected more, which they aren't. Hope this helps.
Because anything beyond the observable horizon can't have affected what we can see. That's what makes it the horizon. If the cause (your mysterious thing) had enough time to affect the object we're observing AND there was enough time for that light to get from there to us, then we'd also be able to see the cause. Nothing travels faster than light, and that's how the observable horizon is defined.
I believe a team with one of the original authors recently published a new paper on this subject in October 2019. Dr. Sabine Hossenfeld discusses this issue in a brand new video as of early December 2019.
I love these videos so much. I hope students today know how lucky they are to have access to this. I know I am and I haven't been in school any time recently.
Hi! Thanks for all your great videos. Can you please do a piece explaining in more detail the ideas of Erik Verlinde in "Emergent gravity and the dark universe"? Thanks!
Hey, talk emergent gravity and the holographic principle, which (according to this recently published article: phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html) obsoletes dark matter.
Daniel Clark in that case take a look at the publication of John Macken 'The universe is only spacetime' onlyspacetime.com I would really like spacetime to do a compendium on these alternative theories with pros and cons, and for that matter do a show on Mackens publication as they did on the dark energy publication.
Weird, I've had my own personal very unique theory on how gravity works, and I'd theorized based on it that dark energy didn't necessarily have to be expanding. Nor did it have to NOT be. The speed of expansion might even be localized to different regions of the universe, and the relative speed of light is likely affected by these tiny variations. In my opinion, further study will eventually show the size of the object effects how much dark energy 'pushes' it, just like dark matter and gravity. Which are basically two sides of the same force. Kinda like the electro-strong-weak forces all use to be a singular force and now work together to drive basically everything about how atoms work with bosons.
Who in the world dislikes these videos? Why are you watching *ANYTHING* on this channel if the gears in that head of yours don't function? People who don't understand shite he'll talk about, still come here to understand how *much* they *don't* know! What are you so afraid of? This stuff might help you survive in the vastness of spacetime, when the great war begins. Winter is coming... (I mean.. Literally, yeah?)
Gravity fails on galaxies so we invented dark matter. Gravity fails on universe level so we invented dark energy. By now the patches are one order of magnitude bigger than the object. But hey, we are 5 sigma confident everything is under control.
Adamast It seems a good point you are making. Except we did not invent dark matter and dark energy as actual things we believe exist and believe to know what they are. They are just the present model of explaining a weird behavior we have observed repeatedly and consistently.
I realize now that I watch these videos not because I know anything about physics or astronomy, but because this fellow sounds like Peter Dinklage as Tyrion and it's really calming.
New layman theory is: expansion and contraction track a wavelength pattern; exponential expansion, stability, exponential contraction, stability. Rinse and repeat!
Well done and well explained vid. Also, I love the fact that "Dark energy is still a thing" is currently scientifically accurate in terms of how well we understand what it is.
that's actually a really funny title, did dark energy just disappear? it's always been disappeared, that's why they call it dark energy .... hehe sorry it just made chuckle a little ...
Our spacial geometry is still 3-dimensional. They're not saying that the universe spreads out in a flat plane that we could observe with our own eyes (like the solar system). From what I understand, they're talking about the curvature of spacetime as a whole. Imagine you have two perfectly straight parallel lines that extended out across the entire visible universe. In our "flat" universe, that geometry is possible. In a curved universe, the lines would eventually curve (and become not parallel, I believe). I'm a little rusty of the finer points of this issue, I admit.
+Matthew Scatterty You're essentially correct but i think the proper geometric test is the use of a triangle, specifically: If angle of triangle is: >180 Universe is (positively) curved =180 Universe is flat
Easy double slit: small piece of aluminum foil, 2 utility knife blades and a laser pen. Put the foil on something flat and unimportant, CAREFULLY place the 2 utility blades together, then using the two blades simultaneously make the 2 slits in the foil about 1 cm long. Secure the blades, take the laser pen and foil in a dark room, about 1 meter from a wall shine the laser on the foil aiming at the slits. It might take a little adjusting the light beam but eventually you should see the interference bands form on the wall.
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe talked about this. I'm willing to bet that we'll find out that Type 1A supernovas aren't quite the "standard candles" we thought they were.
Just wondering, did you watch the video past 6:30? And if so, did you understand what he said? Because it sounds like one of those things you didn't do.
David Stagg I watched it. All I was saying is that the Skeptics' guys (and girls) did a show about this, so I knew about it already. My comment about the Type 1A supernovas is just a musing about what might be skewing the new results...that's all.
ChaosmanOne Except that he pretty conclusively showed why your worry isn't true, there is nothing wrong with type 1A supernova as standard candles. He even explained how this new work actually gave the same results as the original work back in 1998-1999, the media is just misunderstanding the paper (as they usually do). The work back then had 0 DE as a possibility, same as this new work does. And the work back then also only had a 3 sigma confidence in their result, same as this new work. Try listening to his explanation again, he also explains why this isn't an issue because of other data we have. We never just relied on the supernova data alone and we aren't doing so now either.
ChaosmanOne I dont understand how they could be. Stars very similar in mass still have slightly different mass. Its a case of scientific hubris in my opinion.
Will Lastnameguy It's to do with the tipping point at which a star's gravity overcomes the opposing force. Holding that physics is the same everywhere, then the tipping point is universal. Hence standard brightness.
In essence, quantum mechanics deals with very small energies, and while approaching it from the classical regime makes it seem like a completely new set of rules, one can actually derive classical mechanics by taking quantum descriptions and letting energies and wavelengths get large. Similarly, if we go to very high energy (lots of mass, high speed, etc), the rules also appear to change if you approach it from the classical regime. This is the world of general relativity, and almost every discussion of cosmology or the universe takes place in it. However, like with quantum mechanics, one can actually derive classical mechanics by taking relativistic descriptions and letting energies and velocities get small.
Natethesandman1 It's actually both. The universal law of gravity is just an approximation of general relarivity. However, it is true that laws of Physics may change over spacetime.
Feynstein 100 Yup. We used to think that our universe was completely symmetric but, for example, weak force is not totally symmetric. So, now it´s not so crazy to think that over great distances laws of physics may change.
What if Dark energy is another force similar to gravity? Except in the opposite direction, weaker, but doesn't decay as much over long distances. So only over the distance of light years would dark energy have any effect.
TheEvilVargon As I've understood it, that's what it is. I don't know if you mean it's a fundamental force though, I think there are suggestions of that but there is just no one who knows if that's the case. All we know is its effect, nothing about its properties, afaik
Or what if more massive objects surround our detected universe from optically invisible locations far beyond the range of our detectors; their gravity would accelerate what we see outward. What we can see now (with optical instruments) are many events that occurred billions of years ago. In very long time-frames & great distances, even a small difference between between the speed of light and the speed of gravity could cause such an illusion.
QUESTION...........When there is mass in spacetime then there is positive curvature and when 2 masses are next to one another they will move through time on parallel paths but since spacetime has a positive curvature the parallel paths form geodesics which will intersect in an accelerated rate........hence gravity. SO WHY CAN'T I SAY >>>>>> That spacetime in its PURE form...meaning NO MASS in between galaxies...has NEGATIVE CURVATURE. Which causes spacetime to curve in a way where parallel paths DIVERGE away from one another in an accelerated rate instead of CONVERGE toward one another in an accelerated rate. So when 2 galaxies have a lot of spacetime in between them the galaxies will move through time on parallel paths but since spacetime has negative curvature the parallel paths will form parallel paths that will diverge away from one another in an accelerated rate??????????????????????????????????? Galaxies are just moving in straight lines at constant speeds. They appear to be accelerating away from each other but spacetime is just curved and the galaxies are just following those curves in spacetime??????????????????????????? Why can gravity be spacetime curvature but anti gravity/dark energy IS NOT spacetime curvature???????????????????????
What if there is more beyond the observable universe that affects the measurements we get in what we know. Thus always getting close but never accurate Information, creating cycles of provable hypothesis
In that case we would be observing things that are beyond our observable universe which is not posible. Yes, maybe there is something beyond the observable universe acting "now" on a galaxy that is one million ligth years from us, but we would not be able to notice that until one million years from now.
A New Perspective Films, If you're serious about it you need to prove your theory faultlessly in an academic paper and have it submitted for peer review. Though I can tell you now you're probably wrong, and publishing a physics paper (even having it reviewed) can be very difficult for a non PHD. Good luck!
What if our observable universe is just a tiny region of a much bigger universe? Similar to the Great Attractor, but inside out, our entire universe would be attracked equally in all directions toward something we can't see because light would not have reach us yet. Like if we were a small bubble of lower density universe inside a much more, heavier, wider and perhaps non-accelerating universe. Would that be something that could explain the acceleration of our expanding observable universe?
Les Idées Reçues I'm not a physicist or anything, to me though it sounds weird. Correct me if I'm wrong, it would mean that all we see in the observable universe is expanding but on the larger scale it's getting smaller? Wouldn't that be seen somehow in our region of the universe? 14 billion light years is a pretty long distance.. idk I'm a self proclaimed internet scientist xD
I'm not a physicist, but my idea is that since gravitational waves travel with the speed of light, if we were affected by the pull of something outside, we would be able to see it.
*_Nothing_* beats the greatest brainchild of the human brain-the scientific method, whose solid yet pliable backbone is the fusing of constructive criticism, rigorous skepticism, a vivid imagination, and above all the consuming curiosity of a child. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Research shows research needs further research.
Conor OConnor - Look into Cognitive Bias. Very important.
We should _all_ be mandatorily learning about it in grade 7.
Especially, Science, politicians, lawyers & _Law enforcement officials_ & military personal!
Your welcome for your next rabbit hole adventure. *Hugz
Discoveries create more questions create more research create more discoveries. All claims require evidence all evidence must be testable and repeatable. All assertions are only based in known discoveries not unknown undiscovered untested realities. Therefore, all research is infinitely constant.
I don't know this.
epic
search again.
There is so much trash content on RUclips these days - the trending page is almost a joke. So glad that videos like this exist
No way it’s her, she’s come a long way lol.
Wow, relax girl ;)
Ey, there is a easy solution to this!
Ignore the trending page. I'm doing it since it's inception and neither have I bullshit recommends nor do I have to see all the different faces "creating" the same "content"
Good thing team us are superior to the bad other who are wrong.
@@DanielNyong who's she?
+PBSSpaceTime it is incredible that you are able to boil down and explain complex cosmological topics in a way a layman can understand. What's more incredible is that you don't need crazy CGI, but actually go into some detail about the theoretical equations and scientific experiments that support those conclusions without dumbing down the actual information. Please do not stop making this content.
VPSantiago Completely agree! 👍
There is a saying: If you can't explain it in a way a barmaid can understand, you don't understand it yourself.
Who writes the script for these? I imagine a team, but are they contracted out for this kind of work vs. being employed full time by PBS?
Did you just call me a layman?
Both well done and currently accurate as to the latest information.
I understood this video with minus 5 sigma confidence
Prabh Chahal 😂😂😂
Prabh Chahal I read your comment and was thinking WTF? Then that part in the video arrived and I could not stop laughing. 🤔
Prabh Chahal I seriously LOL'd.
lool 😂😉😂
Then you know nothing about statistics.
The fact that you can see interference just with your fingers just blew my mind! Thank you for that. I'm going to have to share that with people and then have them not care and think and I'm crazy
"Of course the media jumped all over this and provided almost no useful info"
LMAO
@Things I Like Journalist studies are only political and semi-religious brainwash (read about the Mouseland metaphore at Wikipedia) . So what do you expect? There is zero science training in journalist education .
@@KibyNykraft Unfortunately these people also have the most control over public opinion.
If there’s no info, how is the media going to provide it?
@@KibyNykraft well, that's because journalists are not scientists?
@@melgross bullshitting around like... most (not all) do?
I have to say, this video is among the crowning jewels of PBS spacetime stuff, purely from the perspective of of the quality of analysis and explanation. Great stuff
This is wonderful! I recently had a discussion with my nephew... he told me that science isn't always right, that science can be wrong. He's right, but it seemed to be an excuse to disregard science, so I responded, "That's true, but what do you use to disprove it?"
He got kind of quiet, then muttered, "...science."
Then we had a chat about how science is a process, a tool rather than a thing of its own. We talked about evidence, and how new ideas are welcome. I'm hoping it was a positive thing.
Laynie Fingers truth. When science is wrong, its usually wrong, because of more science. Its a process.
Laynie Fingers science is all theories. Its a way we try to understand, phenomenons that we dont understand. I think we know less than 0.0000001% of what there is to know out there. We dont even know how Gravity works.. or Light.. or Atoms.. its all theories
Amin That sounds like sudo science.... where did you get this figure from, hardly scientific... light and atoms are pretty well understood, so is how gravity works.... Theories can be tested, which gives us confidence... Guess work and saying it is all just theories is not very helpful to an inquisitive young mind.
Adam Johnson explain gravity to me
Adam Johnson explain to me how the brain works
I've watched this whole Dark Energy playlist several times and I always love it.
Flatearthers: Earths flat
Scientists: Universe is flat
Who do I even trust anymore
This great!
Even my residence is a flat!
It’s definitely a gross oversimplification and misleading to say the universe is flat. From the macro -> the micro (from the large to the small), literally nothing in this universe is truly "flat". Not even the thinnest, lightest sheet of paper is flat. We live in a multi dimensional universe where that is meaningless and a PHYSICAL impossibility.
Cian McCabe Good question. However, Membrane Theory/M-Theory aka Superstring Theory still exists within the multi-dimensional space-time continuum that is itself formed & sustained by the omnipresent quantum "vacuum" field of energy fluctuations, as described by Quantum Mechanics. String Theory still requires our universe- to the best of our current scientific understanding-to exist as a multi-dimensional manifold... again making "flat" or "flatness" an absolute impossibility.
Kids: I’m going to die if you don’t give me another cookie
Doctor: that kid is going to get fat and die if you let them eat all the cookies they want
The cookies are flat.
who to trust...
Another thing that occurs to me - if dark energy speeds expansion up and gravity/energy/matter slow expansion down, doesn't a constant expansion speed imply _some_ dark energy - enough to counteract the gravity side of the equation at least?
Not a physicist here. I think constant expansion at a constant rate might not imply dark energy because it would technically be the initial expansion force expanding the verse. Thats why people thought the universe expanding would slow down as the force just kinda peters out, and even keeping its initial expansion rate would be... understandable but expanding at an ACCELERATING RATE?An expanding universe at an accelerating rate implies something is adding to that outward push.
A rare RUclips science video that is both clear, and doesn't talk down to us, but instead trusts the audience to have the Intelligence to figure out the topic at hand. Just what I want.
Matt, you are extremely talented. So is the team behind you: Rusty, Grayson and Brown.
Really enjoy othe content you produce. Appreciate it.
Othe content...
Othe content…
@@ginabrogan1825 ..and? What are you trying to achieve? At least I spread some positivity. The same can't be said for you?
That finger slit experiment! Totally seen those bands before but never thought it was the same as the slit experiments! Super cool
Same here!!
i used to get pissed off that i couldnt cast a solid shadow puppet with a flash light if i was too close to it.... little did i know that same behavior, extrapolated, shows us so much about the world/universe. yay human curiosity!
Q: "Doctor, I'm seeing dark vertical lines."
A: "You may have watched too much PBS Space Time."
Not smart enough for this series but I watch them all anyways.
the best for to sleep fast at night..
Please do a video on the new article by Verlinde!
This! A thousand times this!
what is Verlinde?
Vaibhav Gupta wanna know too
Vaibhav Gupta Recently dutch physicist published a paper claiming that he found a modified version of gravity that would make dark energy as well as dark matter obsolete. And well the internet is going nuts about it
Markus Wiener "the internet is going nuts about it"
if internet is going nuts then i have my answer.
Watching through this playlist has been such an emotional roller coaster 🎢
Me too 😊
Wow! 15:20 You can see diffraction lines when you look through a gap in your fingers when you hold them really close together! I've just done it and you can see them clearly! Why didn't I know this before‽
right! i got so excited when i saw them!!
It looks pretty cool imo, doesn't it?
Pandaa Bro
Wave/particle duality.
WeStRnInFideL Yes?
I understand literally zero about the video but I still watch it for some reason
The universe is Flat! Checkmate Flat Earthers :D
wait a sec...
They wouldn't get anything in this vid whatching and thinking about it the lifetime of the universe...
I tapped to the left of the like button and it disliked. GG, RUclips!!
Don't see the connection... Plus, we don't know if it's flat or not.
No the model of the universe is flat, however it's actually layers of magnetic lines of force connecting each planet to every other planet, sun, etc... in the universe... They even found "portals" along these lines of force that act and move faster than light... the effect is seen from lines of force coming from our sun, I read an article about it awhile back. They found particles moving faster than they "should" i.e. faster than light.
The universe is *very clearly* saddle shaped... ruclips.net/video/sqjzzv133bI/видео.html
Whoa! That "two fingers in front of your eye" thing... it works. I've done that before, and I've noticed the bands, but I always figured that had to do with my eye having trouble focusing at that distance.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I've seen it before but I thought that was simply my finger I was seeing since eyes can't focus on something that close.
Are we sure we are doing it correctly? Should we only be seeing the dark bands near our fingers?
The757packerfan I think so.
Yes. The bands tend to become less pronounced the more they are distant from the surface/finger.
Kind of strange isn't it. Have you tried it with one finger. It is fainter and more difficult to see but still works.
Keep in mind wave behaviour, and it is easier to understand. Even with just the one finger.
Can you do a video on the pilot wave theory?
That's a good one.
Yarrrrrrr ye be livin' in bilgewater
Also why is it explicitly non-local and what causes that?
watch veritaserum video about it
I watched it. I still don't get the differences between the interpretations of QM.
Man, this guy’s videos are waaay above my physics understanding, I’m sad I can’t fully enjoy them
So I don't know if you were planning on covering this but I'd love to see discussion of magnetic monopoles, in terms of whether or not they exist outside of mathematics, what the implications (in terms of physics and how it might change technology) of monopoles existing or not existing would be. I'd also love it if you could cover the concept of magmatter or monopolium or whichever term people want to use for it, and all that.
2:22 - this is a great example of something that worries me in all of science. Here they admit that they are invested in their playlist, and don't want to delete it. This is analogous to scientists with things like Nobel prizes, careers and papers written. They are invested in not accepting new data as they have lots to lose by it. Just an observation.
Just because a theory ends up proven wrong doesn't mean its mention should be wiped off history. It's important to know all the approaches that have been taken and failed if one is to know where not to go.
"Science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck
Scientists are still human and the sunk cost fallacy can still get to them, but what really makes a good scientist is being able to recognize that type or thought or emotional conflict in yourself and reconcile that with the actual results you are getting from your experiments.
Actually this is pretty much wrong, scientists love disproving ideas because it means there are new exciting theories to explore.
I have just finished watching almost the entire video library on PBS Space Time. My head hurts, but in a very good way. I want to thank you guys for the amazing work you do. That doesn't mean I understand almost ANY of what I've just watched. The part that I love is that my mind has been challenged, and for that, I thank you.
(Advil time.)
I feel like I need to hear this from Susskind - his insight into inflation is next level
I just did the finger eye experiment and freaked out so hard
IKR. how did I not know this one?
I would freak out too if I had a eye on my finger.
Same here!
you should perform the experiment with extreme caution
What is it ?
Finally being able to visualize effects make them so much more graspable and intuitive. Thank you!
I love listening to this guy. He's so smart and explains things so well.
Why do I keep coming to have my brain liquidated? Watched a couple hours worth of these the last couple days and it's really expanding on a lot of what I read back in the '00s on the topic.
Andrew Wright your dark matter is certainly increasing
The trick with the fingers is really neat, never knew that :)
Whoa what an episode I need a nap now
Love this guy! He really has a great way of explaining stuff. Having had physics and higher math helps though.
This series of videos is so addictive.
This is why I love science.. it is true humility to allways be ready to have been wrong... to let the observable and measurable things speak and regard humans as those who want to learn and discover and play around whith theories... and test it out to see if a theory actually are stable or if it can be broken by other observations... science are where truth grows and grows and continues to exite and amaze humans❤️
Yesssss! :'>
True scientists indeed think like this ... unfortunately some fake arogant scientists like Neil degrasse tyson think they know everything
Dank Boi New rule... if you can't spell you're not allowed to call anyone anyone arrogant.
@@bigkahuna1950 sure bro
@@Hawaiipaul *Actors. Who can say what they think?
Actually, serious question this time... If the universe was curved, wouldn't it and everything in it, including light, and us, be distorted in such a way that these huge triangles would appear flat to us? Like the inhabitants of Flatland were their 2D universe wrapped around the surface of a ball? If we're curved in a higher spatial dimension, how could we, as three dimensional beings, ever perceive that?
(I mean, unless we found out that the universe wrapped around like a game of Asteroids)
Actually no! Think about it this way: if you measure the angles of a triangle on the surface of the Earth (assuming you live on a 2-dimensional space that is the surface of the earth) you will find out (entirely 2-dimensionally) that the angles sum up to more than 180 degrees!
Think about 2 points on the equator (farily distant) and 1 point on the north pole. You would draw a line that lies on the equator that connects the 2, and then 2 meridian lines that connect each point with the north pole. Since equator is perpendicular to all meridians, both angles on the equator are exactly 90 degrees. Then you have to add up the third angle at the north pole, which is bigger than zero, so you get 180 degrees plus the third angle.
There you go, perfect proof that the surface of the earth is curved without ever considering the 3 dimensions!
You are correct, and it does, but the ball (or the screen) is so big that we will never get information that has gone all the way around the backside and come back into play. Our whole observable part of the universe has a curvature of something like less than .4%, so the ball is at least 250 times larger than than anything we will ever see. Actually, it is probably a torus, donut-shaped like a multi-dimensional smoke ring expanding from the initial big bang explosion, but either way our little patch of it is almost "flat" for practical purposes.
Imagine living on a giant donut that is constantly growing faster than you can run. You will never be able to do a lap around it. Basically, that's the shape of the situation in the universe. Compared to that, our galaxy is just a little speck of the sugar coating on the surface. Enjoy the sweet life :)
animist channel actually if you keep running and it keeps growing the part behind you is growing too so if you run for long enough you CAN get all the way around. Picture a clock hand ticking slowly while the entire clock grows and grows. (that's actually a poor analogy since the arc covered per tick accelerates significantly, maybe an ant crawling around a clock is better)
animist channel That's what I thought, that we were on the surface of a hypertorus, and therefore curved.
Love your videos, I just discovered them. Keep up the excellent work SpaceTime! :)
Oops I forgot, there was an article on physorg recently about a possible new theory of gravity that explain the universe without needing dark matter, could you do a show about it?
If there is no dark matter that means no wrap drive too
SlyPearTree
Interesting... I'm not understanding why gravitational force would change over distance like that other than tailoring an explanation to fit the observations, but it is an interesting hypothesis.
there are a couple alternatives to dark matter/energy .. those two are just the mainstream theories
That finger slit light diffraction test can be the secret salute Science Believers can use when Science Deniers take over and start persecuting us.
Pipe2DevNull oh I'm totally up for this!
This is good. It's like saying, "Deny all you like, I can see your wave function!"
Distraction?
"Hey check out this finger slit!" [steals wallet]. "Aww, you missed it ~sucker!~"
Auto correct
There are science deniers on every continent (well, except maybe Antarctica). Don't know why you'd have to call out Africa?
Thanks for the most complete explanation for a layperson I've ever heard.
What if the universe actually is hyperbolic or more likely curved, but dark energy is only able to accelerate the universe to a point where it is observed as flat and another undiscovered force or constant is preventing it from either going over or less than that acceleration.
Almost as if there was an anti-big rip mechanism (force) counteracting dark energy, much like there is some weird force that causes light to stay at a specific speed.
I'm not an expert, but I think that it's even more unlikely than you think. We know about how much dark matter there is and from there about how much dark energy, and then when you use the friedmann equations that gives you expansion. Basically we can observe effects of dark energy/matter on galaxies and things and predict what that would do to the galaxy. That being said, we don't actually know if the universe is accelerating expansion, so your theory could be true but in the opposite way :).
+JMEssex we literally measured the curvature of the observable universe. It appears to be quite flat. So either it's so large that our observable universe isn't big enough to notice how curved it is or it's definitely flat.
Matt, video about the new paper 'Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration ' please
At 8:26 It is mentioned that the universe in the red circle has almost no matter in it whereas the graph shows this universe has almost no dark matter in it. It's a different interpretation altogether which assumes that there is dark matter.
Exactly! There are new indications and a 2020 update to the 2016 paper that caused this video.. And it turns out that the Nobel Prize winners supernova study not only had a meager sample size but as the updated paper shows, all of the supernovas in the original study were in 1 half of the sky and almost all of the shifts can be exampled by the movement of our local dipole movement of our local galactic group/solar system as it spins around the center of Milky Way. There may not be any Dark Energy and Dark Matter may be radically different in composition and scope than previously thought or may not exist at all (MOND)
Has anyone considered the possibility that the curvature of the universe might not be constant? Typically, there are three geometrical scenarios postulated for the shape of the universe: open, flat or closed. However, since the curvature at any given point in the continuum is a result of the local changes to the shape of the "fabric" of space-time itself due to masses of nearby objects and thermodynamic effects, the concept of a variable curvature is introduced. Hence, the curvature of the universe as whole could very well be indeterminate.
The universe was weird shaped curves, it would be very unstable and wobbly, and it's not. The shapes predicted are predicted as such because they are stable, not cause Scientists have OCD. The flat universe or Spherical universe theories are the most stable, followed by the parabolic and the donut/croissant shape. Other shapes are possible, but something "wiggly" and different shaped all over would probably lead to extreme erratic and weird distortions of gravity and distant light we simply don't see. In fact, those things are so smooth from our observation, it's one of the main reason modern scientist think the flat universe theory is true. I personally have a strong lean towards the "croissant' shape universe, because that is the shape of energy massing around black holes, which I (and many scientist) think may be linked to the creation of universes.
However, most of these things are extremely theoretical, since we have so little of the universe to look at to determine it's shape. The "Observable universe" stretching out around 14 billion light years from us is estimated by some to be as small as 0.01% of the universe. (Others estimate it as large as 20% or more though) So for all we know it's so large we can't even begin to see it's overall shape.
Yes Space is flat, but space-time is not. Mass bends space-time around it. this is why time progresses at a slower rate near earth than it does where we place satellites. Without this concept "gps just doesn't work". Now some thing to think about is: time is a variable based on gravitational pull and velocity. So lets put a way to measure time any where. 1 second on earth is slower than 1 second in orbit. Only around 36 microseconds but you could still say that the value of 1 second on earth has greater value than one second in orbit. Just as if time were money and you were exchanging different currencies.
Velocity = change in distance over time, when you increase the value of the bottom of a fraction the overall number goes down and visa-versa. So the velocity and acceleration of an object way out in space would appear to be going faster and accelerating change in time^2 for that than they really are. Granted, 0 velocity and acceleration is still 0 when thinking about it this way. But, nothing ever really has 0 velocity or acceleration in this universe because any object has to be at 0 kelvin in order to be not be moving.
If this is true then the speed of light is still constant but it may appear to go faster or slower in parts of the universe. This could account for the red-shifting. But, maybe they did already take this into account when they made their analysis. I haven't actually read the reports.
@@ThrottleKitty mmm croissants
Centrifuge Cities... I can't get over the thought of people living in spinning cities, on a spinning planet, in a spinning solar system, in a spinning galaxy and.... I'm dizzy just thinking about it.
I could listen to you talk all day.
Awesome episode as always ! thank you very much :)
1. Why do we hear so little about dark flow?
2. Why is it not considered there is somthing we cant see beyond the observable horizon that accounts for the "missing matter" problem?
Because they can estimate the mass off the matter outside of the observable edge, and it still comes out to be not even close to enough matter in the world
Lee Dawkins You answered your 2nd question. We can't see it.
GamingEchelon he means beyond the observable horizon, as in the part where its so far away that the light from there hsnt reached us
I would think dark flow isn't said much for two reasons. One, we can't make claims about it since we don't know why it exists really, and two the media hasn't picked up on it probably because of the first reason mostly. It is considered there is matter outside of the horizon, but since we can see effects of matter around us on other matter, and it only affects nearby matter significantly, we can figure out average matter density for the observable universe. It is probable that the unobservable universe is pretty close to that, as long as the big bang theory is employed, since all matter was approximately equally dense everywhere and expanded equally. In any case, the missing matter problem would not be solved by normal matter for a few reasons. One, matter only works on nearby matter unless it has ridiculous mass. It is very unlikely something larger than all observed normal matter exists outside of our view. Even if it did, it is very clear that specific galaxies are being affected differently and it isn't on a gradient like that would suggest. Even if it were spread out, you would expect to see fringe galaxies affected more, which they aren't. Hope this helps.
Because anything beyond the observable horizon can't have affected what we can see. That's what makes it the horizon. If the cause (your mysterious thing) had enough time to affect the object we're observing AND there was enough time for that light to get from there to us, then we'd also be able to see the cause. Nothing travels faster than light, and that's how the observable horizon is defined.
I believe a team with one of the original authors recently published a new paper on this subject in October 2019. Dr. Sabine Hossenfeld discusses this issue in a brand new video as of early December 2019.
Dark energy-- very high caffeine coffee.
Brooks Silber - I LOVE your comment!
Thank you for the 'shot' of positivity, espresso style. (
This comment inspired me to have some coffee.
Your comment, inspired me!
Thank you 🤗🍁
Even darker Energy--- very high cannabioid hash oil chite. Ground/pressed Kïfï plastiline, soft as a butter, no E-numbers. Pure trance-kaïf.
So, what you're saying is the devs finally fixed their gravity code.
I love these videos so much. I hope students today know how lucky they are to have access to this. I know I am and I haven't been in school any time recently.
Hi! Thanks for all your great videos. Can you please do a piece explaining in more detail the ideas of Erik Verlinde in "Emergent gravity and the dark universe"? Thanks!
Hey, talk emergent gravity and the holographic principle, which (according to this recently published article: phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html) obsoletes dark matter.
Daniel Clark in that case take a look at the publication of John Macken 'The universe is only spacetime' onlyspacetime.com
I would really like spacetime to do a compendium on these alternative theories with pros and cons, and for that matter do a show on Mackens publication as they did on the dark energy publication.
Is dark matter a thing? The original preprints:
arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 (2010)
arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 (2016)
Hey I'm also Daniel Clark, hello Daniel Clark!
This is actually possible. Simply becoming aware of things can drastically change the future quantum physics teach us
It couldn't disappear if it was never there!
I don't know this.
Weird, I've had my own personal very unique theory on how gravity works, and I'd theorized based on it that dark energy didn't necessarily have to be expanding. Nor did it have to NOT be. The speed of expansion might even be localized to different regions of the universe, and the relative speed of light is likely affected by these tiny variations. In my opinion, further study will eventually show the size of the object effects how much dark energy 'pushes' it, just like dark matter and gravity. Which are basically two sides of the same force. Kinda like the electro-strong-weak forces all use to be a singular force and now work together to drive basically everything about how atoms work with bosons.
You have the best narration.
Who in the world dislikes these videos? Why are you watching *ANYTHING* on this channel if the gears in that head of yours don't function? People who don't understand shite he'll talk about, still come here to understand how *much* they *don't* know! What are you so afraid of? This stuff might help you survive in the vastness of spacetime, when the great war begins. Winter is coming... (I mean.. Literally, yeah?)
it is possible those are just bots.... or butthurt dark energy proponents :-D
WHY in the name of everything sacred do you bring the politics here?
yeap !! this is by far the best channel on the freaking youtube
Gravity fails on galaxies so we invented dark matter. Gravity fails on universe level so we invented dark energy. By now the patches are one order of magnitude bigger than the object. But hey, we are 5 sigma confident everything is under control.
Adamast It seems a good point you are making. Except we did not invent dark matter and dark energy as actual things we believe exist and believe to know what they are. They are just the present model of explaining a weird behavior we have observed repeatedly and consistently.
Brilliant series of videos.
Thé more we know, the more we don’t know.
Everything we think we know is always subject to being questioned and retested.
Gosh if this wasn't true we would still be Apes wouldn't we?
I realize now that I watch these videos not because I know anything about physics or astronomy, but because this fellow sounds like Peter Dinklage as Tyrion and it's really calming.
went right over my head i do try honest i do
"we made this playlist, its pretty hardcore"
can comfirm
New layman theory is: expansion and contraction track a wavelength pattern; exponential expansion, stability, exponential contraction, stability. Rinse and repeat!
the washing machine analogy?
i dont know why i watch these videos, i never know what the hell hes saying
Gilberto Solorio Neither does he - otherwise theory wouldn't keep getting overwritten and changed. No one really knows.
Because sexy commentator
Why does everyone say this lol
+2hdtaliban haha you feel me bro 😂, I do the same
Same here, i dunno why i watch these, i dont understand most of what they say here ...
Guys, I'm sorry, I broke the Universe. I should of known that meme magic was too powerful of a force to tamper with...
Use ol' good solution, the SuperGluon - to mend the Universe! This quark-free protons extract works like a charm...
7 years later and I am putting two fingers up and looking at a light. Amazing!
The difference of the experiments was a dark energy wave ...
But that's future info.
Well done and well explained vid. Also, I love the fact that "Dark energy is still a thing" is currently scientifically accurate in terms of how well we understand what it is.
I got one thing out of this: spooky action up close and personal with fingers...
that's actually a really funny title, did dark energy just disappear? it's always been disappeared, that's why they call it dark energy .... hehe sorry it just made chuckle a little ...
I don't know this.
Wait, a flat universe?
The fuck did i miss in the last 2 decades?
+Bobfermasan basically we measured the curvature of the freaking observable universe and determined it to be rather likely to be flat.
Bobfermasan
imagine a pancake. if you look closely you will find that is not flat in very small area.
The flatness of the universe is in reference to space-time and not the physical positions of matter.
Our spacial geometry is still 3-dimensional. They're not saying that the universe spreads out in a flat plane that we could observe with our own eyes (like the solar system). From what I understand, they're talking about the curvature of spacetime as a whole. Imagine you have two perfectly straight parallel lines that extended out across the entire visible universe. In our "flat" universe, that geometry is possible. In a curved universe, the lines would eventually curve (and become not parallel, I believe). I'm a little rusty of the finer points of this issue, I admit.
+Matthew Scatterty You're essentially correct but i think the proper geometric test is the use of a triangle, specifically:
If angle of triangle is:
>180 Universe is (positively) curved
=180 Universe is flat
Easy double slit: small piece of aluminum foil, 2 utility knife blades and a laser pen. Put the foil on something flat and unimportant, CAREFULLY place the 2 utility blades together, then using the two blades simultaneously make the 2 slits in the foil about 1 cm long. Secure the blades, take the laser pen and foil in a dark room, about 1 meter from a wall shine the laser on the foil aiming at the slits. It might take a little adjusting the light beam but eventually you should see the interference bands form on the wall.
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe talked about this.
I'm willing to bet that we'll find out that Type 1A supernovas aren't quite the "standard candles" we thought they were.
Just wondering, did you watch the video past 6:30? And if so, did you understand what he said? Because it sounds like one of those things you didn't do.
David Stagg I watched it. All I was saying is that the Skeptics' guys (and girls) did a show about this, so I knew about it already. My comment about the Type 1A supernovas is just a musing about what might be skewing the new results...that's all.
ChaosmanOne Except that he pretty conclusively showed why your worry isn't true, there is nothing wrong with type 1A supernova as standard candles. He even explained how this new work actually gave the same results as the original work back in 1998-1999, the media is just misunderstanding the paper (as they usually do). The work back then had 0 DE as a possibility, same as this new work does. And the work back then also only had a 3 sigma confidence in their result, same as this new work.
Try listening to his explanation again, he also explains why this isn't an issue because of other data we have. We never just relied on the supernova data alone and we aren't doing so now either.
ChaosmanOne I dont understand how they could be. Stars very similar in mass still have slightly different mass. Its a case of scientific hubris in my opinion.
Will Lastnameguy It's to do with the tipping point at which a star's gravity overcomes the opposing force. Holding that physics is the same everywhere, then the tipping point is universal. Hence standard brightness.
"Of course, the media jumped all over this and provided almost no useful info" :)
Excellent presentations.
Pardon my ignorants but is it possible that there is another law for extremely massive objects as there is for extremely small .quantum physics. .
In essence, quantum mechanics deals with very small energies, and while approaching it from the classical regime makes it seem like a completely new set of rules, one can actually derive classical mechanics by taking quantum descriptions and letting energies and wavelengths get large.
Similarly, if we go to very high energy (lots of mass, high speed, etc), the rules also appear to change if you approach it from the classical regime. This is the world of general relativity, and almost every discussion of cosmology or the universe takes place in it. However, like with quantum mechanics, one can actually derive classical mechanics by taking relativistic descriptions and letting energies and velocities get small.
I believe yes, this would be a set of laws describing multiple universes
I love hearing about theoretical physics, time to go back to real life now
Wow the finger slit experiment thing is really neat.
huge fan of spacetime and fellow aussie, can i get a whats up?
Matt Thorgood I'll give you a g'day!
'sup, fellow Matt?
Holy hell they answered! Keep the videos coming!
S' happening space time. Keep up the good work
'sup fellow aussie :P
It would be great if you could add spanish subtitles. BTW this is one of my favourite science-related channels. Keep it up, proud of you
This channel is awesome.
What if dark energy doesn't exist but that the universal law of gravity is changed with the expansion of spacetime
Natethesandman1 It's actually both. The universal law of gravity is just an approximation of general relarivity. However, it is true that laws of Physics may change over spacetime.
+Salamandra They may?
Feynstein 100
Yup. We used to think that our universe was completely symmetric but, for example, weak force is not totally symmetric.
So, now it´s not so crazy to think that over great distances laws of physics may change.
***** That's quite a heavy predicament.
Feynstein 100
Yes it is, but it´s only an idea, we need an experiment to confirm it or discard it.
What if Dark energy is another force similar to gravity? Except in the opposite direction, weaker, but doesn't decay as much over long distances. So only over the distance of light years would dark energy have any effect.
TheEvilVargon As I've understood it, that's what it is. I don't know if you mean it's a fundamental force though, I think there are suggestions of that but there is just no one who knows if that's the case. All we know is its effect, nothing about its properties, afaik
What if dark energy was pixies farting in interstellar space? Idk I haven't done the research.
Or what if more massive objects surround our detected universe from optically invisible locations far beyond the range of our detectors; their gravity would accelerate what we see outward. What we can see now (with optical instruments) are many events that occurred billions of years ago. In very long time-frames & great distances, even a small difference between between the speed of light and the speed of gravity could cause such an illusion.
What if it was god
Which one?
QUESTION...........When there is mass in spacetime then there is positive curvature and when 2 masses are next to one another they will move through time on parallel paths but since spacetime has a positive curvature the parallel paths form geodesics which will intersect in an accelerated rate........hence gravity. SO WHY CAN'T I SAY >>>>>> That spacetime in its PURE form...meaning NO MASS in between galaxies...has NEGATIVE CURVATURE. Which causes spacetime to curve in a way where parallel paths DIVERGE away from one another in an accelerated rate instead of CONVERGE toward one another in an accelerated rate. So when 2 galaxies have a lot of spacetime in between them the galaxies will move through time on parallel paths but since spacetime has negative curvature the parallel paths will form parallel paths that will diverge away from one another in an accelerated rate??????????????????????????????????? Galaxies are just moving in straight lines at constant speeds. They appear to be accelerating away from each other but spacetime is just curved and the galaxies are just following those curves in spacetime??????????????????????????? Why can gravity be spacetime curvature but anti gravity/dark energy IS NOT spacetime curvature???????????????????????
What if there is more beyond the observable universe that affects the measurements we get in what we know. Thus always getting close but never accurate Information, creating cycles of provable hypothesis
In that case we would be observing things that are beyond our observable universe which is not posible.
Yes, maybe there is something beyond the observable universe acting "now" on a galaxy that is one million ligth years from us, but we would not be able to notice that until one million years from now.
Is this the coolest guy on the planet? 6 sigma likelyhood
I almost teared up at that closing statement
Ok so I literally have math to back up these claims, as well as others, but I don't know what to do with them, will SpaceTime, what do I do??!
A New Perspective Films, If you're serious about it you need to prove your theory faultlessly in an academic paper and have it submitted for peer review. Though I can tell you now you're probably wrong, and publishing a physics paper (even having it reviewed) can be very difficult for a non PHD. Good luck!
Try submitting for peer review here;
arxiv.org
***** Thanks man for real, I have my paper almost finished as well, I've just never submitted anything for review before!
Maybe watch the entire video before commenting.
Good luck :) let's all hope you're right.
What if our observable universe is just a tiny region of a much bigger universe?
Similar to the Great Attractor, but inside out, our entire universe would be attracked equally in all directions toward something we can't see because light would not have reach us yet.
Like if we were a small bubble of lower density universe inside a much more, heavier, wider and perhaps non-accelerating universe.
Would that be something that could explain the acceleration of our expanding observable universe?
Les Idées Reçues I would be interested to hear an educated response to this questing 👍
Question*
Les Idées Reçues I'm not a physicist or anything, to me though it sounds weird. Correct me if I'm wrong, it would mean that all we see in the observable universe is expanding but on the larger scale it's getting smaller? Wouldn't that be seen somehow in our region of the universe? 14 billion light years is a pretty long distance.. idk I'm a self proclaimed internet scientist xD
Malte Bergman it would still be expanding on the larger scale... but maybe not accelerating.
I'm not a physicist, but my idea is that since gravitational waves travel with the speed of light, if we were affected by the pull of something outside, we would be able to see it.
Sometimes your videos are simply amazing: this is one of them imho
blame Florida for this
"dark energy is now industry standard" . funny guy.....
*_Nothing_* beats the greatest brainchild of the human brain-the scientific method, whose solid yet pliable backbone is the fusing of constructive criticism, rigorous skepticism, a vivid imagination, and above all the consuming curiosity of a child.
💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
Could it be a measurement error?
Nono, no measurement error!
...
Ok, our theory was based on a measurement error... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not even dark energy could handle the presidential election. #GiveDarkEnergyAHug