Sure "the universe should have torn itself apart in a minute fraction of a second" sounds bad but I maintain that "ovens should produce limitless energy and radiation" is still the worse prediction.
But it's the only explanation where I can still absolve myself of any blame when I burn something in my oven. So I'll stick with that one thank you very much.
@@gorantev If we don't know enough to know exactly where we are wrong and why, it is clear as night and day we can't and shouldn't say we know "matter" is exactly 5% of the universe, "dark matter" is exactly 25% of the universe, and "dark energy" exactly 70% of the universe, etc., etc. THAT is just idiocy committed by the most brilliant, most educated folks in civilization... similar to what Aristotle and countless others had done in previous generations (the brightest in society coming up with some of the most stupid "explanations" for how reality and the cosmos work, here on earth and "out there" in the far distance). For me, unless and until the contrasting explanations by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are brought to a seamless whole, like a perfectly fitted puzzle, things like (the "mysterious") "dark matter" and (the "even more mysterious") "dark energy" as well as "Inflation" (or "hyper-inflation," the Allen Guth imaginary energy) are just Planet Vulcan, Aether, Crystalline Sphere assertions, randomly & clever reverse engineering mathematical contraptions conjured up and invoked to make "theories" look plausible. It's not real science when X or Y or Z "must" have happened. Any time the word "MUST" is used, it's nothing more than Bronze Age religious fairy tale doctrines and beliefs...
Loving the fact you get straight into the equations....and give really clear narrative about how they work and what they mean. I'm not a physicist, just have an interest. So many lectures aimed at folk like me avoid the equations; wrongly in my view. Keep it up!!!
Agreed. The derivations make it very clear what the implications are and don't require anything more complex than some calculus (and a lot of algebra) to follow. Of course it's far easier to see it explained than do it yourself!
Quite quite true!! For the mathematically respectful but not accomplished, this has been like the experience of the kid who's been taught a half year of cello but never heard any music but blue grass gospel in church, who then gets seated before a professional orchestra performing Brahms. Impossible to comprehend but not, in awe, profoundly to appreciate.
Pretty much equivalent to about a dozen+ hours of Lenny Susskind's/Stanford lectures(which are superb in their own right imo) but amazingly condensed to well under an hour. A priceless EDU Gem !
Me, reading your comment from two hours ago: Huh? it's only ten minutes to eleven. *looks at symbols in your name*: oh, yeah, that explains it. I hope you have slept well, when you read this. Have a nice day!
Same here. 3AM. Just about to put phone down & sleep...oh look here's an interesting news story about the EPA restoring scientific integrity post-Trump...article refers to Sharpie Gate...haha yea I remember that, let's watch a quick funny RUclips video to recall what that was all about...hahaha...oh look, there's a new video from Physics Explained about the Vacuum Catastrophe. Fascinating! ...damn now it's 5AM.
Thank you so much. This is incredible content. Your technical explanations are at a perfect level for a lot of us who enjoy deeper dives into physics. I hope your channel grows.
TBF, Science is about trying to prove a hypothesis incorrect, not to prove something correct. So even wrong predictions and hypothesis are valuable information.
New sub: Back in the sixties when I attended high school, I was drawn to read Scientific American in spite of the fact that I comprehended very little of the content. In the same way-as a layperson-I am enchanted by the production values and teaching methods of this video.👍👍👍👍👍
Aaaaaahhh… I get it!- “Dark Energy= Pi squared times energy mass velocity derivative factor over r factor multiplied by divided gravity squared plus Hawkings wheelchair minus Einstein’s whiskers” -thanks for clearing that up for a layman like myself!
I love learning stuff by listening to stuff I don't really understand like that in the background while doing chores. I don't understand most of it, but slowly I start to, or I will connect something from one thing to another thing and it will start to make sense. I now know a little bit about basically everything, which is pretty useful.
Being a physics noob I have several questions after watching this video: 1) Plank's length and time simply denote the limit of our ability to meaningfully measure something. They are not some fundamental constants so why are they used as such? 2) By dividing by acceleration and its derivative we automatically assume that the acceleration isn't zero and changes with time. If it's not true then doesn't the whole thing fall apart? 3) Using the fluid equation for the whole Universe seems like a stretch. Can we really know that the Universe doesn't lose or gain energy as it changes in size? 4) We know that time flow varies. Around the supermassive black holes, which amount to a significant part of the observable mass, time almost slows down to a halt. and so do all the processes. Knowing this how can time derivatives be simply applied to the whole Universe without being inspected more thoroughly? Can someone please explain?
Also being a physics noob i can't answer these with definite certainty 1. I think its because they are constants, the Planck length isn't going to change unless something fundamental with Newton's law of gravitation or the electromagnetic force changes. The Planck time isn't going to change unless the Planck length or the speed of light change, so I think because these numbers are already based on constants and equations that we know shouldn't change that we use them as constants. 2. Its because we've observed that the universe is accelerating and at an increasing rate, although I'm not sure how this would be justified before these discoveries were made. 3. It's due to the conservation of energy that we observe everywhere, so we assume (and probably have evidence I'm unaware of) that it applies to the universe as a whole. 4. I think that's due to using the cosmological principle to say that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so we kind of just ignore the regions of space that are particularly different like black holes.
I am in no way a professional so I might state some mistaken points but I will try to ellaborate on Spaghett's answers: 1)Planck units (natural units) are derived using gravitational constant, speed of light and planck constant: they are basically as fundamental as these things get. The reason why they were used there is because the fluctuations should constrained by the uncertainty principle, that is have a maximum value. Planck scale makes a logical cutoff. It is true that you can get Planck units derived slightly differently and those then are different from the standard size by a small coefficient, like 2pi or 4pi, but that doesn't matter too much in this case. 2) this actually shows that the universe CANNOT be static which was goal of Friedman in studying this equation. Remember, before 60s most people thought that the universe is static and this was one of the biggest blows to that idea.
Brilliant job! I was really disappointed when the video ended after only 49 minutes. I could have listened to you for another couple of hours, at least.
As someone starting a physics degree soon, I just wanted to say that you are an incredible content creator. Your work is inspiring and clear, keep up the amazing effort!
And yet he is not even questioning the theory of expansion, and is quite happy to believe in theories of mysterious energy, a rather conservative mind.
@@ps200306 It depends if your measurements are correct (they're not) and also depends how far you can see. Around the Laniakea Supercluster space appears to be contracting. Mathematical predictions of expansion do not match observations.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 , the Laniakea Supercluster is not gravitationally bound, therefore not contracting. Of course there are deviations from the Hubble flow on the scale of superclusters and below -- that's what you would expect.
I agree. This 4D unified, quantised subspace matter-energy field model provides a few possibilities. Exploding neutrino crystals... locally shrunk/expanded subspace cell width/gap... huge hole blown in the subspace matter-energy field... Black hole universes in black hole universe... -- Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model -- Subspace Charge Field: +ve charge cells (ball, quanta, +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge. Matter-energy field conserves momentum -- Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Momentum conserves velocity.. Force changes velocity and/or direction -- Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops -- Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops -- Noton/Dark Matter (n+-): Exactly opposite phase close p+ and e- annihilate (ie. entangled pair created together (e_p) ), else a noton forms -- Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P+e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N+p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep) -- Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field -- Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating AC bond, same sign=phase repel -- Instant-Off Long Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve charge move in contrary motion -- Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve charge that pulls cells, that then bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out (N/S) DC loops -- Strong Force: Spin loops merge and form flowing DC circuits between e-s and p+s -- Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Notons have compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel -- Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits -- Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly noton hits statistically tipping the balance -- Photon: Charged particles moving up and down (transmitter, atomic electron) form a radiating transverse wave blip pattern -- Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys -- Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve charge so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve charge gradient -- Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve charge to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation -- Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration -- Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions' intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs inwardly at C that annihilate or form notons, Protons, Neutrons -- Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve charge loss? Noton crystal exploded? -- Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Noton crystal (with a core returning to empty field)? Large hole in the field traps anything entering? -- Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison -- Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time. Gravity shrinks cells so light slows but locally measures C as circuits lengthen in space & time, adding mass -- Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, anti-neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
If space is infinite then any finite volume occupies an infinitely small volume, relatively speaking, even though it does have absolute size.. Even though our universe has expanded, if it is finite in size in an infinite space it still occupies a relatively infinitely small volume... A problem with maths or a feature of reality? I like a finite universal field occupying a finite amount of Real Space that is infinite and propertyless.. My 4D EM Field is all that is needed to explain a coherent universe.
You just explain these things in a very intriguing and understandable way. The usage of the equations alongside your explanation helps to better understand how one comes up with these assumptions about the universe.
For any fans of SixtySymbols, you may like to know that Ed Copeland refers to the Friedmann equation as the "Cool Dude" equation in his lectures and notes. You have to love him
But, no. If you are in a free-falling elevator, you are floating, and a pencil "standing on its point" wouldn't have any meaning, because there would be no up or down. How can a pencil be "standing" in this situation? It can't. It's just floating, like you are.
I wish I had this video when I was in the middle of my cosmology module at university... I've always been bad at seeing the 'whole picture' as I'm learning and studying for an exam, but when I revisit summaries later on, it all fits together nicely. Your videos are excellent.
Amazing, as always. Thanks for taking the considerable time to cogently summarize and relate these concepts - I always learn something from your videos.
Your explanations are amazing. I do have to watch several times to start to get it most of the time. Can't wait to hear the ones you have planned. Who are some of your favorite physicists, alive and dead?
This is one of the most interesting channels on RUclips; you do SO MUCH better with physics than many other channels. I do hope this channel starts posting more videos!
I'll be really sincere here and say that I didn't know what dark energy is and was too lazy to search for some boring explanation, and you, sir, made me understand what dark energy and dark matter is without being boring, and for that I must say thank you very much!
Watched this on recommendation of one of my profs after explaining that fascination with the vacuum catastrophe was a major reason I was studying physics. Good recommendation prof! Particularly fascinated by the observed/classical/quantum relationship for lambda values. It's got me thinking, 'how does one go about predicting a value for lambda-classical from first principles?' It's a good job I'm well aware (and only a tiny bit scared) that there is no bottom to the question well :). Nice work PE. Easily the most rigorous, compressed coverage I've yet sampled on YT.
Whenever I just want to play. This channel helps me to study math and science. And makes me go a little closer to the goal I have in my life. Thanks for making these informative and inspiring videos 👍
Seems like the way were thinking about the production of quantum vacuum “energy” is erroneous and that not all probabilistic fluctuation states possible which do occur cause sustained probabilistic entropic processes (i.e. energy).
you are mistaken, energy has nothing to do with entropy in this case, THE CHANGE IN DENSITY of energy does. If you have constant energy density (like that one of the vacuum energy) no entropy will change (fluctuations don't cause information transfer since they are completely random, that is another way how to think about it). This is why you can't mine energy out of vacuum with Zero Point Modules like in SG: Atlantis, because that would mean a change in entropy. The vacuum has some energy value: you can see that in the cassimir effect etc. The problem with the vacuum catastrophy is that our naive predictions predict in that case either: infinite value for the energy or with plank scale constraints an unreasonably high value for this energy. Which means: our thinking about the contributions must be mistaken (after all it isn't that different from the thermal radiation problems that created quantum mechanics in the first place), there must be some other effect suppressing the contributions or we are completely mistaken in some other way, the existence of some vacuum energy however is completely sure.
To perhaps clarify - the smaller the vibration (wavelength) the higher the energy. Wavelength and frequency being inverse to one another. E=hf. High frequency = high energy (i.e. gamma versus microwave) QM uses the shortest wavelength. Why I don't know. GR is using the longest wavelength. The vacuum of space. This is like comparing the two different sides of the MTS equation. A long long wavelength (small frequency) exists at the Dark Energy side (S side of MTS) (10 to the minus 29 g/cm3) while the shortest wavelength (Planck & 5.16 to the 93rd g/cm3) (high frequency) exists as the extreme density of a black hole (M side of the MTS equation) . Remember The MTS equation is from 0 mph to "c" in the MTS direction. In the STM direction, we go from "c" to 0mph. And with Lorentz transformations along the way. [As a side note I recall I believe out of Chicago two scientists saying that as things were brought an Bose-Einstein condensate, they approached a black hole, well, this appears evident in the MTS equation as the M (black hole) side of the equation is one of no motion. I believe I left a nervous and blathering phone message to one of them some ten or so years ago. ] What I have just realized now is that there are some 10 to the order of 120 magnitudes between the M and S side of the MTS equation. In your vacuum catastrophe you are comparing a short wavelength (high mass-high frequency ) QM environment to a long wavelength (low mass - high space-low frequency) GR environment. Why? The zero point energy of QM has nothing to do with the vacuum of space. You are mixing apples and peanuts.
I have always been taught that, when your model makes an prediction that turns out false (particularly if it is wildly false), then your first order of business (after checking your math over) is to go back through the various assumptions you made in your model, both stated and unstated, to determine where something we take as obvious or reasonable might in fact not be so. Since the calculated value of the quantum vacuum energy depended on certain assumptions about using the Planck Time as a 'cutoff' for frequencies that could contribute to it, that seems like one plausible place we could have made an incorrect assumption. What 'cutoff' would we have to assume in order to match the observed energy density? What would that revised cutoff imply in a physical sense, and how might we justify or verify that?
Yes, it seems that the smallest imaginable time produces an excessively large energy density, so that such small fluctuations are nonexistent, for some reason.
First off, I accept your challenge. Second, fantastic and very well done presentation on a very complex topic. A very clear approach; obviously, someone without basic physics and some calculus would not be able to follow all the arguments but certainly the general approach. As you have shown the issue becomes a problem due to the uncertainty principle when applied to the vacuum energy. There, I feel, lies both the issue and solution. I am certainly interested in solving this problem and do feel it can be done. Obviously, any solution has to use and agree with existing physics but additional extensions must be incorporated to allow a viable solution. This I do believe is possible and some aspects that I have worked out both have experimental proof (for the assumptions) and follow current physics. Time will tell (and calculation) if my approach is valid. Your youtube topic has really help me with this problem - thank you
Up date: I've actually made some real progress in addressing these and other aspects of gravitation theory, as well (like what space curvature really is) - and my basic idea as extended to gravity does agree with experimental data and is falsifiable; it solves these and other issues but I am still a long way off but aspects are falling into place
Forgive my humanities degree: When the maximum energy density of the vacuum was calculated, was that not the hypothetical maximum energy which could occur at the maximally small length of time? I understood this to mean that that huge number was possible for very short periods of time. You did some fancy stuff with derivatives w/respect to time, but I think that this point stands outside of that: If we were to quantify the probability of that energy density occurring, we could say that on average, across the entire universe, the vacuum energy density could be whatever we wanted it to be. That is, knowing hubbles constant as we do and the predictions that makes for the energy density of the universe, we should be able to model the probability of vacuum energies. I imagine it would be a very low probability that the maximum energy would spontaneously appear, so say its 0.0001% (or however small you need to make it fit our current observations).
that's a good point, given the simplified explanation here. In regular quantum mechanics, the vacuum is a stationary state: it does not evolve with time, so the vacuum fluctuations are baked in, so-to-speak. In quantum field theory terms, we'd say to get from an initial vacuum state to an identical final vacuum state, the electron, photon, quark, etc fields coherently take all possible configurations that conserve energy and momentum and are allowed by boundary conditions (see: Casimir force). So the fluctuations are here, there, and everywhere, all the time, with negative and positive energies all adding to zero. The idea that particles are randomly popping in and out at different places for limited times with real probabilities (as opposed to coherent superpositions of complex probability amplitudes) is just too classical to be realistic.
@@DrDeuteron i'm not even convinced of the conservation of energy hypothesis in the universe, but it does make a convenient and accurate solution to local phenomena.
I am horrible at math and when you got into numbers i got a bit (a lot) lost, but at least the colourfull letters and numbers + the calm voice were pretty epic
Will you ever do a video on the Schrödinger equations, where it’s derived from, what’s it comprised of and what it’s useful for? Or is that not your field at all?
Yes, would like that as well. Including how the Fock we can make the Schrödinger equations work in relativistic quantum mechanics. Ouch. Thanks, I'll see myself out.
The cosmological principal was discovered by the french philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century : 'the Universe is a sphere where the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere'.
My brain simply does not work in learning languages. Unfortunately, that includes the language of Math. That being said, I very much appreciate you putting the equations on the screen and explaining them as you do. The more I see them, the more I learn the language, and however slow and painful it might be with repetition helps understanding over time. The definition of learning.
This is great! As a non-physicist interested in this stuff, I've heard the massive discrepancy between the energy density prediction & observation mentioned many times, but getting an explanation as to why there's such a massive disagreement is much harder to come by. The string theory anthropic explanation seems very unconvincing. How do we even know those 10^500 other universes really exist in the first place? You may as well say God is watching the quantum pot and making sure it never boils. Surely with that many universes to choose from, in at least one of them God would exist too?
@Gerard Moloney I'm speaking only from the point of quantum physics that the life is the best self improving and self replicating machine. One that you need a decade of intense study to just realise how vast and complex it is and how much more is to discover. The metaphysical context is not needed here. Especially that I didn't declare that the life is ruled by randomness and started spontaneously.
@Gerard Moloney Thanks, but I've read the Bible. In fact I was raised in a good Evangelical household and my Dad was a pastor for a time. The obsession with sin, the hostility towards the sciences, the bigotry and divisiveness did me a lot of damage and really held me back while I dealt with the emotional fallout. In fact I consider Christian indoctrination a form of child abuse. In any case, definitely not for me!
Your videos rock!!! Your explanations are better than DR PHYSICS A. I love the way you add math to your explanations Can you do a video on einstein field equations?
Great explanation. As soon as I saw the difference between the predicted and observed I knew the math was going to show some crazy things going on. It sure does seem like the answer lies in getting a better understanding of how dark energy operates beyond "it's the energy of the vacuum". Maybe it's somehow tied to something in quantum mechanics we haven't found yet.
The preverbal ‘Ys in the road’ in the first minute of your video offers numerous options. One neglect option is that the geophysics dynamic of inner-core super-rotation should be examined in considerable detail. It’s inverted gravity dynamic offers a legitimate portal conjecture toward dark energy. A gravity inversion starts at a radius of 3480 Kilometers in earth. This gravity inversion curiosity creates legitimate questions about our current mindset of the ‘conservation of energy and momentum’ - Also known as “The First Commandment of Modern Physics.” This curiosity is likely insightful for resolving this ‘Catastrophe’ in your outstanding video; along with many other misconceptions in physics.
32:46 One major problem with stating that energy fluctuation is limited by how much its duration is short is that when talking about density it poses the question "How much its duration is short compared to what?". If two of those fluctuations appear one after the other, its basicly a fluctuation which is twice as long. I wonder if taking that into account could somehow help to solve the problem. If i'm right, the computation of vacuum energy density assumes that all fluctuations happen all the time which just doesn't make sense because in that case it's the same as if it's a much longer fluctuation, and therefore should have much lower energy.
This is absolutely the most brilliantly explained and visualised video that I have ever seen, and I have watched a lot of them. What a wonderful contribution to public education. We are all richer for the author's efforts.
True. Universe size could be finding a balanced, fix size if expansion was decelerating (which it doesn't appear to be).. In my model, out of place, moving +ve subspace field cells form an up quark which traps 1 quantum of -ve subspace charge away from the rest of the field which expands a tiny bit. Cells may also shrink a bit around the out of place field cell (up quark). This adds up to Dark Gravity - a subspace charge gradient ... -- On top there is the conservation of outward momentum of a big bang explosion who's ejector velocity petered out over the course of the explosion, magnified in time... Also the presumably spherical universe if in a multiverse could rapidly lose -ve subspace charge to the multiverse, causing rapid expansion... +ve charges cells held together by free-flowing -ve charge is all that is needed to emerge a simplified 4D Standard Model... -- Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 3D multi/universe model -- Subspace Charge Field: +ve charge cells (quanta, +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge. Matter-energy field conserves momentum -- Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Velocity is position change in time.. Force changes velocity and/or direction -- Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Out of place, free cell warps the field and sends out field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 spin loops -- Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field and sends out field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 spin loops -- Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Neutrino has compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel -- Nucleons: Proton: P = pep, Neutron: N = Pe = (pep)e, Beta-: e, Beta+: B = p,n = p,pe, Alpha: A = PNPN = (PeP)(PeP) = (pep)(e)(pep)(pep)(e)(pep) -- Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field -- Electrostatic Force: Recoiling repulsive blip spheres propagate. Same phase blips repel, opposite form an attracting AC wave guide, recoil adds push -- Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve charge that pulls the cells, that then bounce out, forming 6 loops as a torus. Spins up/down -- Strong Force: Spin loops merge and form DC (flowing) circuits between e-s and p+s -- Mass: Length x number of strong force bonds + near electric field. Neutral bion has compact strong force circuits , Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel -- Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits -- Long Instant Off Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve charge move in contrary motion -- Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly statistical hits by bions tipping the balance -- Photon/Light: e- (or p+) moving alternately up and down (ie. transmitter or e- moving from a neutral ground state to charged higher level and back) -- Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys -- Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve charge so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve charge gradient -- Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve charge to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation -- Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration -- Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions's intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs from outside in at C. Many annihilate or form neutrinos -- Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve charge loss? Neutrino crystal exploded? -- Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Bion crystal? Truly empty hole in the field that rips matter to pieces, turning it into subspace field until full? -- Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison -- Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time so light slows locally with gravity as cells shrink but always measures C locally as subspace circuits slow too-- -- Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, anti-neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
Such good content. Hoping you decide to tackle theories of everything someday. Having issues wrapping my head around geometric unity currently if you feel like taking suggestions.
god, these videos are SO GOOD. also: i know basically everyone hates it at school, but it's fucking incredible how powerful a concept as simple as algebra is.
I am realizing this far too late in life. Math is incredible. In 25 years of American schooling, I have had exactly ONE good math teacher. Such a shame.
Maybe it’s just me but the concept of dark matter and dark energy look a lot like science trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I want to believe it but I can’t, not until it’s more than a mathematical afterthought to explain why equations don’t predict reality
An incredible channel. Mind blowing stuff. Thank-you for presenting it so well. It would be amazing if and when this problem is resolved. Hopefully in my lifetime.
I understand nothing, but yet I still watch the video. Weird. Fluctuation, addition, equation, density, interpretation, constants, it feels like my mind is melting.
This was a great, detailed explanation of a topic i have never seen a good video on, thank you very much! But when you derive the acceleration equation you still just take it as a given that the universe is expanding in the first place, right? A cause of the expansion itself is never given. Will a contracting universe "bounce" back to expansion? So solving the ultraviolet catastrophe leads to the vacuum catastrophe... Can't this(and other divergences in QFT from infinite contributions) be solved in a similar manner? Quantizing the amplitude contributions to the energy density? I had a discussion with Zap Physics about this in terms of Feynman Diagrams and they say it would be hard to motivate such an approach given how well the current theory with renormalization works.
The predicted rate of expansion coupled with the mathematically derived energy density, if I were to put it extremely simply, sounds like the conditions of the universe at or very very very… … very soon after the Big Bang.
As a Physicist researching quantum inertia, atomic structure, and quantum gravity, I favor the zitterbewegung interpretation of QM. I think that cosmic redshift is caused by light very slowly losing momentum as it traverses the vast expanse of the Universe through the quantum vacuum. I think there is just as much negative as positive energy in the quantum vacuum, so it all adds to zero. In short, zero total vacuum energy and a static Universe. There is also no dark matter. We misunderstand inertia and think there's all this extra mass when none is actually needed.
You are unreally good at explaining this stuff. In the stuff I already understand as a total STEM nerd of 43 years, you basically nail the simplest explanation I've learnt or discovered, every single time, or you teach me somewhat more. This is a rare treat. Please continue. I'll correct, of course, if there's a reason, as the scientific and didactic process lies. But for now there hasn't been a *single* instance where I could intervene. Usually mind kind of polymath *would* intervene, but you're just too good and methodical. You cover all the bases. And you're TIGHT AS FUCK! The conciseness and preciseness of your presentation well out-shines anything I've ever seen, online, or off.
The question I have relates to the apparent red shift and the observed time. If apparent time is slowed at the source and the universe expansion causes the source to go beyond the speed of light then of course that source would not be visible.. However if the time dialation approaches infinite for a velocity approaching the speed of light than the observed source would appear forever approaching that speed of light (though at an ever greater red shift) and though the speed of expansion would appear to be speeding up the time dilation over distance would make distant objects appear to have not traveled as far in the time available as closer objects with less time dialation per unit of time. Thus we would be seeing the most distant objects at a much closer apparent distance and time than they would appear but fo the time dialation, and eventually there would appear that the most distant objects were ever more concentrated as the apparent passage of time at those locations would approach zero.
The expanding universe has gone from doubling in size from 10E-43 seconds to 10E9 years !!! Excuse me for saying this, but that appears to be a bloody big error in calculations vs actual observation. First principles appear to have gone out the window.
@Disc Golf "quantum physics is gonna bust all this down eventually" - Before I posted my comment, I didn't take that into account. You're right, if anything is going to make sense of it, that will.
The best physics channel I know of. Frankly, it is the first time I hear clear definitions and explanations of most fundamental concepts of modern physics, up to their limits so to speak...But to me a scale factor of 10^120 in the discrepancy of calculated and predicted values is a clear sign there is a fundamental mismatch lying at the root, and a new Einstein is needed to create a new framework to overcome it...
Thank you. I’ll need to watch again to get my head round it. You explanation of the terms of formulae in terms of physical properties was simple excellent. It makes the ultraviolet catastrophe look like simple arithmetic. Watching this video, with my limited physics, it’s the first time I have seen mathematically the problem of reconciling QFT with GR. The solution to this catastrophe seems to be intrinsically bound up with that problem. -- If space is granular, am I correct that this means time is granular too? Is each field constrained by those grains? Each grain represents the “point” in which the field holds a value? (The idea of a “point” in space thus takes on a different meaning.) The “fine tuning” argument just makes me think of Sabine Hossenfelder’s warnings about some physicist fixation on mathematical beauty.
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos Sabine Hossenfelder posed that if this “prediction” is incorrect because it doesn’t correspond to observation then what part of the theory has had to be abandoned? I’ll try to find the video.
Having watched the video again it seems that the source of the error must be in one of the assumptions on the calculation of the vacuum energy. The part I struggle with is that space has a minimum size (a cube with sides of the Planck length) and that QFT says each field has a value at every “point” in space but those points have no size are smaller than the smallest size of space. Also in this video the notion of bringing to electrons so close together they would create a black hole makes intuitive sense as particles but I have no sense of this in QFT fields. How does the Pauli exclusion principle work in QFT? The electrons just can’t perfectly overlap in the field space they occupy? More fundamentally I’m taken as given the notion of a field being “taking a value at every point in space”, which I have heard a number of times. But a value only makes sense on a qualitative scale. Excuse my ignorance. If someone could recommend something for me to read I would appreciate it.
Go to 5:50 in this video: Physicist Despairs over Vacuum Energy ruclips.net/video/bl_wGRfbc3w/видео.html Hossenfelder rejects the whole basis of this video.
But doesn't the expansion of the universe violate energy conservation? why is every equation based on the principle of conservation of energy if the process that it's describing doesn't conserve energy? Also why is the quantum vacuum energy density calculated with the most energetic perturbation, the fact that it's the most energetic proces doesn't imply that it's the mean energy right? I feel that those are question that I won't get answers :/ I wish I had an astrophysics friend to ask
Another masterpiece! 👏🏼🏆 Thank you for the excellent videos and the excellent channel! P.S. Could you do a video explaining the electron orbitals? How are they derived from first principles? Their shapes from first principles.
When you get down to it, most of physics beyond Newtonian is "handwavy" as you put it, things like dark matter and dark energy, the cosmological constant, and even the speed of light are all just concepts invented to allow our current understanding of physics to function properly. We don't actually know why the universe appears to have more mass than it should, we don't actually know what the one-way speed of light is, we actually know very little at all and most of it is theory.
Hmm, just absolutely incapable of using the math, still able to understand some things, Looks to me that the problem and Reality have a similarity, though somewhere along the line something got inversed, and the equation made a mistake in terms of time, Instead of 10th of a billion of a second reality ends up being 10 billion Years, impressive how similar the answer is whilst ending up using the wrong passage of time,
Thinking the sun revolves around the Earth and punishing those who said otherwise is pretty big. Maybe for the fun of it we should jail the proponents of dark energy.
> Which means that everything in our universe should be ripped apart in the next millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, which is clearly not happening. Fuckin' can't look forward to _anything._
![The Dark Energy Mystery [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cQyoYzHxdvo/mqdefault.jpg)
Sure "the universe should have torn itself apart in a minute fraction of a second" sounds bad but I maintain that "ovens should produce limitless energy and radiation" is still the worse prediction.
But it's the only explanation where I can still absolve myself of any blame when I burn something in my oven. So I'll stick with that one thank you very much.
Oh, you and your ultraviolet catastrophe ;-)
@@theglitch312 lmao
@@WeirdMedicine ohh so that what that is
I think my stove is getting excess radiation from another universe because simmer should not boil an open pot of soup.
“Let’s take a deeper look at the vacuum of space”
You say, pushing me out the airlock.
James Barclay was not An Impostor.
2 Impostors remain.
that sounds like a Quark threat from deep space nine ''or i'll push you out the nearest airlock''
@@taufiqutomo hahahaha AMOGUS hahaha 😂🤭😆😅🤣
@@taufiqutomo Amogus
@@shaunhumphreys6714 i see youre a man of Culture aswell
when in doubt, just slap a cosmological constant onto the end of the equation
More alarming is leaving an infinity in the accepted academic cosmology lexicon. If you have an infinity in your work, you made a mistake.
@@coolhand411luke6 Yeah, but we can't fix that, yet. We simply don't know enough to know exactly where we are wrong, and why.
@@chri-k Thanks for letting me know.
Yeah, that was kinda weird ngl
@@gorantev If we don't know enough to know exactly where we are wrong and why, it is clear as night and day we can't and shouldn't say we know "matter" is exactly 5% of the universe, "dark matter" is exactly 25% of the universe, and "dark energy" exactly 70% of the universe, etc., etc. THAT is just idiocy committed by the most brilliant, most educated folks in civilization... similar to what Aristotle and countless others had done in previous generations (the brightest in society coming up with some of the most stupid "explanations" for how reality and the cosmos work, here on earth and "out there" in the far distance).
For me, unless and until the contrasting explanations by Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are brought to a seamless whole, like a perfectly fitted puzzle, things like (the "mysterious") "dark matter" and (the "even more mysterious") "dark energy" as well as "Inflation" (or "hyper-inflation," the Allen Guth imaginary energy) are just Planet Vulcan, Aether, Crystalline Sphere assertions, randomly & clever reverse engineering mathematical contraptions conjured up and invoked to make "theories" look plausible.
It's not real science when X or Y or Z "must" have happened. Any time the word "MUST" is used, it's nothing more than Bronze Age religious fairy tale doctrines and beliefs...
Loving the fact you get straight into the equations....and give really clear narrative about how they work and what they mean. I'm not a physicist, just have an interest. So many lectures aimed at folk like me avoid the equations; wrongly in my view. Keep it up!!!
Cheers!
Agreed. The derivations make it very clear what the implications are and don't require anything more complex than some calculus (and a lot of algebra) to follow. Of course it's far easier to see it explained than do it yourself!
Also a great way to weed out nonsense. Ask for the maths.
"I have a theory about how it all works and no one will listen!"
-> "Let's see your maths."
this is so true
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos I need to agree! I'm glad you went directly into the equations :D And you've produced a very well forged video! :D
Love the way you show how the most important findings and problems in physics can be derived from basic equations. Thank you!
You're very welcome!
Quite quite true!! For the mathematically respectful but not accomplished, this has been like the experience of the kid who's been taught a half year of cello but never heard any music but blue grass gospel in church, who then gets seated before a professional orchestra performing Brahms. Impossible to comprehend but not, in awe, profoundly to appreciate.
Pretty much equivalent to about a dozen+ hours of Lenny Susskind's/Stanford lectures(which are superb in their own right imo) but amazingly condensed to well under an hour. A priceless EDU Gem !
This entire video is literally only 3 pages in my cosmology textbook, it's not as condensed as you might think.
@@ObjectsInMotion Yea, I don't doubt it. I tend to exaggerate, its still a gem though.
@@ObjectsInMotion which cosmology book?
@@sdadsada8528 Barbara Ryden's
👍🍻
"We are now in a position to combine all of our previous results"
Oh yeah, it's all coming together.
Me preparing to sleep at 3am:
youtube: DARK ENERGY AND THE VACUUM CATASTROPHE
Me, reading your comment from two hours ago: Huh? it's only ten minutes to eleven.
*looks at symbols in your name*: oh, yeah, that explains it.
I hope you have slept well, when you read this.
Have a nice day!
Same here.
Me too. Just a pain in the arse when you choose a video with adverts which are broadcast at 3 times the volume of the actual video 👍
Same here. 3AM. Just about to put phone down & sleep...oh look here's an interesting news story about the EPA restoring scientific integrity post-Trump...article refers to Sharpie Gate...haha yea I remember that, let's watch a quick funny RUclips video to recall what that was all about...hahaha...oh look, there's a new video from Physics Explained about the Vacuum Catastrophe. Fascinating! ...damn now it's 5AM.
Same here
This channel is a treasure
Especially for physic fanboys or interested
@@TylerSolvestri yeah I'm a medical student but still a physics nerd since high school 😁
It is
@@TylerSolvestri He's on a list because fanboys who look 18 but turned out to be 12
agreed!
Thank you so much. This is incredible content. Your technical explanations are at a perfect level for a lot of us who enjoy deeper dives into physics. I hope your channel grows.
Glad it was helpful!
Very very well said.
I make an error this big on my paper: get it marked wrong.
PhD's make an error this big: write grant proposals.
😆
TBF, Science is about trying to prove a hypothesis incorrect, not to prove something correct.
So even wrong predictions and hypothesis are valuable information.
@@masstv9052 He was being satirical. 😊
New sub: Back in the sixties when I attended high school, I was drawn to read Scientific American in spite of the fact that I comprehended very little of the content. In the same way-as a layperson-I am enchanted by the production values and teaching methods of this video.👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks for the feedback, glad to hear that you are enjoying the content
Aaaaaahhh… I get it!- “Dark Energy= Pi squared times energy mass velocity derivative factor over r factor multiplied by divided gravity squared plus Hawkings wheelchair minus Einstein’s whiskers” -thanks for clearing that up for a layman like myself!
I love learning stuff by listening to stuff I don't really understand like that in the background while doing chores. I don't understand most of it, but slowly I start to, or I will connect something from one thing to another thing and it will start to make sense.
I now know a little bit about basically everything, which is pretty useful.
Being a physics noob I have several questions after watching this video:
1) Plank's length and time simply denote the limit of our ability to meaningfully measure something. They are not some fundamental constants so why are they used as such?
2) By dividing by acceleration and its derivative we automatically assume that the acceleration isn't zero and changes with time. If it's not true then doesn't the whole thing fall apart?
3) Using the fluid equation for the whole Universe seems like a stretch. Can we really know that the Universe doesn't lose or gain energy as it changes in size?
4) We know that time flow varies. Around the supermassive black holes, which amount to a significant part of the observable mass, time almost slows down to a halt. and so do all the processes. Knowing this how can time derivatives be simply applied to the whole Universe without being inspected more thoroughly?
Can someone please explain?
Also being a physics noob i can't answer these with definite certainty
1. I think its because they are constants, the Planck length isn't going to change unless something fundamental with Newton's law of gravitation or the electromagnetic force changes. The Planck time isn't going to change unless the Planck length or the speed of light change, so I think because these numbers are already based on constants and equations that we know shouldn't change that we use them as constants.
2. Its because we've observed that the universe is accelerating and at an increasing rate, although I'm not sure how this would be justified before these discoveries were made.
3. It's due to the conservation of energy that we observe everywhere, so we assume (and probably have evidence I'm unaware of) that it applies to the universe as a whole.
4. I think that's due to using the cosmological principle to say that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so we kind of just ignore the regions of space that are particularly different like black holes.
I am in no way a professional so I might state some mistaken points but I will try to ellaborate on Spaghett's answers:
1)Planck units (natural units) are derived using gravitational constant, speed of light and planck constant: they are basically as fundamental as these things get. The reason why they were used there is because the fluctuations should constrained by the uncertainty principle, that is have a maximum value. Planck scale makes a logical cutoff. It is true that you can get Planck units derived slightly differently and those then are different from the standard size by a small coefficient, like 2pi or 4pi, but that doesn't matter too much in this case.
2) this actually shows that the universe CANNOT be static which was goal of Friedman in studying this equation. Remember, before 60s most people thought that the universe is static and this was one of the biggest blows to that idea.
Brilliant job! I was really disappointed when the video ended after only 49 minutes. I could have listened to you for another couple of hours, at least.
Always keep them wanting more.
As someone starting a physics degree soon, I just wanted to say that you are an incredible content creator. Your work is inspiring and clear, keep up the amazing effort!
Thank you for the feedback, it is much appreciated. Good luck with the Physics degree!
This must have taken an incredible amount of work to create. It was very thorough and clear. Thanks and great job!
Glad it was helpful!
And yet he is not even questioning the theory of expansion, and is quite happy to believe in theories of mysterious energy, a rather conservative mind.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 , expansion is an observational fact.
@@ps200306 It depends if your measurements are correct (they're not) and also depends how far you can see. Around the Laniakea Supercluster space appears to be contracting. Mathematical predictions of expansion do not match observations.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 , the Laniakea Supercluster is not gravitationally bound, therefore not contracting. Of course there are deviations from the Hubble flow on the scale of superclusters and below -- that's what you would expect.
Squeezing a billion trillion trillion trillion Andromeda galaxies into one cubic metre... He's 'avin a laugh!
It would be very expensive and time-consuming.
@@baruchben-david4196 Would be terrible for the economy!
I agree. This 4D unified, quantised subspace matter-energy field model provides a few possibilities. Exploding neutrino crystals... locally shrunk/expanded subspace cell width/gap... huge hole blown in the subspace matter-energy field... Black hole universes in black hole universe...
--
Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model
--
Subspace Charge Field: +ve charge cells (ball, quanta, +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge. Matter-energy field conserves momentum
--
Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Momentum conserves velocity.. Force changes velocity and/or direction
--
Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops
--
Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops
--
Noton/Dark Matter (n+-): Exactly opposite phase close p+ and e- annihilate (ie. entangled pair created together (e_p) ), else a noton forms
--
Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P+e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N+p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep)
--
Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field
--
Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating AC bond, same sign=phase repel
--
Instant-Off Long Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve charge move in contrary motion
--
Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve charge that pulls cells, that then bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out (N/S) DC loops
--
Strong Force: Spin loops merge and form flowing DC circuits between e-s and p+s
--
Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Notons have compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel
--
Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits
--
Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly noton hits statistically tipping the balance
--
Photon: Charged particles moving up and down (transmitter, atomic electron) form a radiating transverse wave blip pattern
--
Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys
--
Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve charge so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve charge gradient
--
Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve charge to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation
--
Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration
--
Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions' intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs inwardly at C that annihilate or form notons, Protons, Neutrons
--
Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve charge loss? Noton crystal exploded?
--
Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Noton crystal (with a core returning to empty field)? Large hole in the field traps anything entering?
--
Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison
--
Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time. Gravity shrinks cells so light slows but locally measures C as circuits lengthen in space & time, adding mass
--
Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, anti-neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
If space is infinite then any finite volume occupies an infinitely small volume, relatively speaking, even though it does have absolute size.. Even though our universe has expanded, if it is finite in size in an infinite space it still occupies a relatively infinitely small volume... A problem with maths or a feature of reality? I like a finite universal field occupying a finite amount of Real Space that is infinite and propertyless.. My 4D EM Field is all that is needed to explain a coherent universe.
speaking of compactification...
You just explain these things in a very intriguing and understandable way.
The usage of the equations alongside your explanation helps to better understand how one comes up with these assumptions about the universe.
Cheers!
For any fans of SixtySymbols, you may like to know that Ed Copeland refers to the Friedmann equation as the "Cool Dude" equation in his lectures and notes. You have to love him
If you walk into a room and find a pencil's standing on it's point - you're in a freefalling elevator! Who would have thought :)
If the elevator is freely falling wouldn't I be in air ? I am not sure my concepts aren't good and I haven't watched the video yet
@@himanshi0003 you could be in an astronaut mall
I won't be able to walk then because my steps then accelerate me into the ceiling.
I see what you did here, Andrew.
We should be thinking in GR terms, not QM ones.
But, no. If you are in a free-falling elevator, you are floating, and a pencil "standing on its point" wouldn't have any meaning, because there would be no up or down. How can a pencil be "standing" in this situation? It can't. It's just floating, like you are.
I wish I had this video when I was in the middle of my cosmology module at university... I've always been bad at seeing the 'whole picture' as I'm learning and studying for an exam, but when I revisit summaries later on, it all fits together nicely.
Your videos are excellent.
Same here. Always takes a couple of years to sink in ;-)
@@ps200306 5 years and a Master's later, and I still don't think I know E&M.
I'm starting my PhD this year too, god help me
Thanks for the kind feedback
Amazing, as always. Thanks for taking the considerable time to cogently summarize and relate these concepts - I always learn something from your videos.
Great to hear!
Thanks again man for this quality content
Your explanations are amazing. I do have to watch several times to start to get it most of the time. Can't wait to hear the ones you have planned. Who are some of your favorite physicists, alive and dead?
James Clerk Maxwell is perhaps my favourite..
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos Perfect.
Underrated channel. Great job.
Much appreciated!
You both...
@@dimitrijmaslov1209 Thanks, man.
This is one of the most interesting channels on RUclips; you do SO MUCH better with physics than many other channels. I do hope this channel starts posting more videos!
Great video. Seems quantum mechanics has more development ahead - it's vacuum energy is not observed nor possible.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated
I'll be really sincere here and say that I didn't know what dark energy is and was too lazy to search for some boring explanation, and you, sir, made me understand what dark energy and dark matter is without being boring, and for that I must say thank you very much!
And then there's Ovens and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe...
Watched this on recommendation of one of my profs after explaining that fascination with the vacuum catastrophe was a major reason I was studying physics. Good recommendation prof!
Particularly fascinated by the observed/classical/quantum relationship for lambda values. It's got me thinking, 'how does one go about predicting a value for lambda-classical from first principles?' It's a good job I'm well aware (and only a tiny bit scared) that there is no bottom to the question well :).
Nice work PE. Easily the most rigorous, compressed coverage I've yet sampled on YT.
You are always the center of your own observable universe.
Unless you are near the edge of the actual universe.
Concepts explained in detail and illustrations are extremely helpful to imagine & understand, Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Whenever I just want to play. This channel helps me to study math and science. And makes me go a little closer to the goal I have in my life. Thanks for making these informative and inspiring videos 👍
I'm absolutely abysmal at maths, but have such an interest in physics... This channel is a bloody godsend for me! Thank you so much
Great to hear!
Seems like the way were thinking about the production of quantum vacuum “energy” is erroneous and that not all probabilistic fluctuation states possible which do occur cause sustained probabilistic entropic processes (i.e. energy).
you are mistaken, energy has nothing to do with entropy in this case, THE CHANGE IN DENSITY of energy does. If you have constant energy density (like that one of the vacuum energy) no entropy will change (fluctuations don't cause information transfer since they are completely random, that is another way how to think about it). This is why you can't mine energy out of vacuum with Zero Point Modules like in SG: Atlantis, because that would mean a change in entropy. The vacuum has some energy value: you can see that in the cassimir effect etc. The problem with the vacuum catastrophy is that our naive predictions predict in that case either: infinite value for the energy or with plank scale constraints an unreasonably high value for this energy. Which means: our thinking about the contributions must be mistaken (after all it isn't that different from the thermal radiation problems that created quantum mechanics in the first place), there must be some other effect suppressing the contributions or we are completely mistaken in some other way, the existence of some vacuum energy however is completely sure.
To perhaps clarify - the smaller the vibration (wavelength) the higher the energy. Wavelength and frequency being inverse to one another. E=hf. High frequency = high energy (i.e. gamma versus microwave) QM uses the shortest wavelength. Why I don't know. GR is using the longest wavelength. The vacuum of space. This is like comparing the two different sides of the MTS equation. A long long wavelength (small frequency) exists at the Dark Energy side (S side of MTS) (10 to the minus 29 g/cm3) while the shortest wavelength (Planck & 5.16 to the 93rd g/cm3) (high frequency) exists as the extreme density of a black hole (M side of the MTS equation) . Remember The MTS equation is from 0 mph to "c" in the MTS direction. In the STM direction, we go from "c" to 0mph. And with Lorentz transformations along the way. [As a side note I recall I believe out of Chicago two scientists saying that as things were brought an Bose-Einstein condensate, they approached a black hole, well, this appears evident in the MTS equation as the M (black hole) side of the equation is one of no motion. I believe I left a nervous and blathering phone message to one of them some ten or so years ago. ] What I have just realized now is that there are some 10 to the order of 120 magnitudes between the M and S side of the MTS equation. In your vacuum catastrophe you are comparing a short wavelength (high mass-high frequency ) QM environment to a long wavelength (low mass - high space-low frequency) GR environment. Why? The zero point energy of QM has nothing to do with the vacuum of space. You are mixing apples and peanuts.
I followed this video for about 5 minutes. Which I think is a new record for me.
So dude just said “lets add a constant “... like what
The pubic mane around my be whole grows at a well known constant rate and is probably what he's talking about.
I have always been taught that, when your model makes an prediction that turns out false (particularly if it is wildly false), then your first order of business (after checking your math over) is to go back through the various assumptions you made in your model, both stated and unstated, to determine where something we take as obvious or reasonable might in fact not be so.
Since the calculated value of the quantum vacuum energy depended on certain assumptions about using the Planck Time as a 'cutoff' for frequencies that could contribute to it, that seems like one plausible place we could have made an incorrect assumption. What 'cutoff' would we have to assume in order to match the observed energy density? What would that revised cutoff imply in a physical sense, and how might we justify or verify that?
Yes, it seems that the smallest imaginable time produces an excessively large energy density, so that such small fluctuations are nonexistent, for some reason.
A physics channel that is not just about concept and philosophy, amazing!
You killed this. Thank you so much! I've always wanted to be 'walked' through this math but never knew anyone who could. Instant sub!
First off, I accept your challenge.
Second, fantastic and very well done presentation on a very complex topic. A very clear approach; obviously, someone without basic physics and some calculus would not be able to follow all the arguments but certainly the general approach.
As you have shown the issue becomes a problem due to the uncertainty principle when applied to the vacuum energy. There, I feel, lies both the issue and solution. I am certainly interested in solving this problem and do feel it can be done. Obviously, any solution has to use and agree with existing physics but additional extensions must be incorporated to allow a viable solution. This I do believe is possible and some aspects that I have worked out both have experimental proof (for the assumptions) and follow current physics. Time will tell (and calculation) if my approach is valid. Your youtube topic has really help me with this problem - thank you
Up date: I've actually made some real progress in addressing these and other aspects of gravitation theory, as well (like what space curvature really is) - and my basic idea as extended to gravity does agree with experimental data and is falsifiable; it solves these and other issues but I am still a long way off but aspects are falling into place
Forgive my humanities degree:
When the maximum energy density of the vacuum was calculated, was that not the hypothetical maximum energy which could occur at the maximally small length of time? I understood this to mean that that huge number was possible for very short periods of time. You did some fancy stuff with derivatives w/respect to time, but I think that this point stands outside of that: If we were to quantify the probability of that energy density occurring, we could say that on average, across the entire universe, the vacuum energy density could be whatever we wanted it to be. That is, knowing hubbles constant as we do and the predictions that makes for the energy density of the universe, we should be able to model the probability of vacuum energies. I imagine it would be a very low probability that the maximum energy would spontaneously appear, so say its 0.0001% (or however small you need to make it fit our current observations).
that's a good point, given the simplified explanation here. In regular quantum mechanics, the vacuum is a stationary state: it does not evolve with time, so the vacuum fluctuations are baked in, so-to-speak. In quantum field theory terms, we'd say to get from an initial vacuum state to an identical final vacuum state, the electron, photon, quark, etc fields coherently take all possible configurations that conserve energy and momentum and are allowed by boundary conditions (see: Casimir force). So the fluctuations are here, there, and everywhere, all the time, with negative and positive energies all adding to zero. The idea that particles are randomly popping in and out at different places for limited times with real probabilities (as opposed to coherent superpositions of complex probability amplitudes) is just too classical to be realistic.
@@DrDeuteron i'm not even convinced of the conservation of energy hypothesis in the universe, but it does make a convenient and accurate solution to local phenomena.
I can appreciate that every time a physicist runs into an unsolvable problem it is labeled a catastrophe.
I am horrible at math and when you got into numbers i got a bit (a lot) lost, but at least the colourfull letters and numbers + the calm voice were pretty epic
Excellent presentation! I have solved both the vacuum catastrophe paradox and the mystery of fine structure constant. My paper will be published soon!
Will you ever do a video on the Schrödinger equations, where it’s derived from, what’s it comprised of and what it’s useful for? Or is that not your field at all?
also, requesting a vid on inflation theory! Really, really large numbers really excite me!
Yes, would like that as well.
Including how the Fock we can make the Schrödinger equations work in relativistic quantum mechanics.
Ouch. Thanks, I'll see myself out.
The cosmological principal was discovered by the french philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century : 'the Universe is a sphere where the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere'.
This channel is a channel.
In my line of work, a Vacuum Catastrophe is when a vacuum chamber goes to air!
I dont have any physics background but you explain things in such an easy to understand way, without dumbing it down at all.
My brain simply does not work in learning languages. Unfortunately, that includes the language of Math. That being said, I very much appreciate you putting the equations on the screen and explaining them as you do. The more I see them, the more I learn the language, and however slow and painful it might be with repetition helps understanding over time. The definition of learning.
Op 👍🏻👍🏻 great video
This is great! As a non-physicist interested in this stuff, I've heard the massive discrepancy between the energy density prediction & observation mentioned many times, but getting an explanation as to why there's such a massive disagreement is much harder to come by. The string theory anthropic explanation seems very unconvincing. How do we even know those 10^500 other universes really exist in the first place? You may as well say God is watching the quantum pot and making sure it never boils. Surely with that many universes to choose from, in at least one of them God would exist too?
Well, for some the universe's laws and theories there is a need of an external observer... or the equations will take a different turn.
@Gerard Moloney I'm speaking only from the point of quantum physics that the life is the best self improving and self replicating machine. One that you need a decade of intense study to just realise how vast and complex it is and how much more is to discover. The metaphysical context is not needed here. Especially that I didn't declare that the life is ruled by randomness and started spontaneously.
@Gerard Moloney Thanks, but I've read the Bible. In fact I was raised in a good Evangelical household and my Dad was a pastor for a time. The obsession with sin, the hostility towards the sciences, the bigotry and divisiveness did me a lot of damage and really held me back while I dealt with the emotional fallout. In fact I consider Christian indoctrination a form of child abuse. In any case, definitely not for me!
Q: if you draw a picture of a tree in a field, are you automatically IN that picture? Cheers!
Your videos rock!!!
Your explanations are better than DR PHYSICS A.
I love the way you add math to your explanations
Can you do a video on einstein field equations?
Thanks for the kind words! Einstein's field equations are on the list
Great explanation. As soon as I saw the difference between the predicted and observed I knew the math was going to show some crazy things going on. It sure does seem like the answer lies in getting a better understanding of how dark energy operates beyond "it's the energy of the vacuum". Maybe it's somehow tied to something in quantum mechanics we haven't found yet.
Glad it was helpful!
Fantastic tour the force through 20th century physics and it’s implications for cosmology. This is very hard to do well. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
The preverbal ‘Ys in the road’ in the first minute of your video offers numerous options. One neglect option is that the geophysics dynamic of inner-core super-rotation should be examined in considerable detail. It’s inverted gravity dynamic offers a legitimate portal conjecture toward dark energy. A gravity inversion starts at a radius of 3480 Kilometers in earth. This gravity inversion curiosity creates legitimate questions about our current mindset of the ‘conservation of energy and momentum’ - Also known as “The First Commandment of Modern Physics.” This curiosity is likely insightful for resolving this ‘Catastrophe’ in your outstanding video; along with many other misconceptions in physics.
One of the best channels out there.
This is the only channel I’ve ever turned on notifications for
32:46 One major problem with stating that energy fluctuation is limited by how much its duration is short is that when talking about density it poses the question "How much its duration is short compared to what?". If two of those fluctuations appear one after the other, its basicly a fluctuation which is twice as long. I wonder if taking that into account could somehow help to solve the problem. If i'm right, the computation of vacuum energy density assumes that all fluctuations happen all the time which just doesn't make sense because in that case it's the same as if it's a much longer fluctuation, and therefore should have much lower energy.
This is absolutely the most brilliantly explained and visualised video that I have ever seen, and I have watched a lot of them. What a wonderful contribution to public education. We are all richer for the author's efforts.
Quality content. I like they way you describe with equations which other channels fail to do.
You are an exceptionally gifted teacher.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed the video
negative acceleration does not necessarly imply contraction
True. Universe size could be finding a balanced, fix size if expansion was decelerating (which it doesn't appear to be).. In my model, out of place, moving +ve subspace field cells form an up quark which traps 1 quantum of -ve subspace charge away from the rest of the field which expands a tiny bit. Cells may also shrink a bit around the out of place field cell (up quark). This adds up to Dark Gravity - a subspace charge gradient ...
--
On top there is the conservation of outward momentum of a big bang explosion who's ejector velocity petered out over the course of the explosion, magnified in time... Also the presumably spherical universe if in a multiverse could rapidly lose -ve subspace charge to the multiverse, causing rapid expansion... +ve charges cells held together by free-flowing -ve charge is all that is needed to emerge a simplified 4D Standard Model...
--
Bottom-up Thought Experiment... Constraints: As few base forces and particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 3D multi/universe model
--
Subspace Charge Field: +ve charge cells (quanta, +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge. Matter-energy field conserves momentum
--
Matter-Energy: Matter is focused energy.. Energy is mobile matter.. Velocity is position change in time.. Force changes velocity and/or direction
--
Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Out of place, free cell warps the field and sends out field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 spin loops
--
Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field and sends out field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 spin loops
--
Mass: Sum of the lengths of all strong force bonds + near electric field. Neutrino has compact strong force bonds, Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel
--
Nucleons: Proton: P = pep, Neutron: N = Pe = (pep)e, Beta-: e, Beta+: B = p,n = p,pe, Alpha: A = PNPN = (PeP)(PeP) = (pep)(e)(pep)(pep)(e)(pep)
--
Heavier Fermions: Larger holes and chunks of subspace field rapidly disintegrate to p+s, e-s, n+-s and/or annihilate to regular = empty field
--
Electrostatic Force: Recoiling repulsive blip spheres propagate. Same phase blips repel, opposite form an attracting AC wave guide, recoil adds push
--
Spin: e-s and p+s pull in the 12 surrounding cells, or -ve charge that pulls the cells, that then bounce out, forming 6 loops as a torus. Spins up/down
--
Strong Force: Spin loops merge and form DC (flowing) circuits between e-s and p+s
--
Mass: Length x number of strong force bonds + near electric field. Neutral bion has compact strong force circuits , Protons' are long as 2 p+s repel
--
Magnetism: Some spin-aligned atoms' p+s and e-s' strong bonds join in a shorter straight path. Energy conservation results in external force circuits
--
Long Instant Off Force: AC (longitudinally blipping) subspace 'flux tube' as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve charge move in contrary motion
--
Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Possibly statistical hits by bions tipping the balance
--
Photon/Light: e- (or p+) moving alternately up and down (ie. transmitter or e- moving from a neutral ground state to charged higher level and back)
--
Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys
--
Dark Gravity: p+ traps 1 quantum of -ve charge so void cell size/gap grows (and matter's shrinks?) forming a macro -ve charge gradient
--
Bang Expansion: Loss of -ve charge to the multiverse?.. Bang ejector velocity petered out, magnified in time by outward momentum conservation
--
Gravity Wave: Longitudinal wave where the entire field in a large region is effected in unison for a duration
--
Big Ping: A dark crystal universe collisions's intense gravity wave forms e- & p+ pairs from outside in at C. Many annihilate or form neutrinos
--
Big Bang: Ping wave collides centrally? Field blast forms matter + a large hole (then Big/Dark Refill)? Fast -ve charge loss? Neutrino crystal exploded?
--
Black Hole: Absorbs matter and energy. Bion crystal? Truly empty hole in the field that rips matter to pieces, turning it into subspace field until full?
--
Frame Dragging: Entire sphere of subspace cells rotating around a point in unison
--
Time: Cell to cell blips take a constant time so light slows locally with gravity as cells shrink but always measures C locally as subspace circuits slow too--
--
Makes more sense than making up bosons to carry force and mass, quarks that don't solve the anti-matter and dark matter problem, anti-neutrinos, loads of fundamental fields, extra spatial and temporal dimensions etc, that ultimately don't tie relativity and quantum mechanics together properly or well... They should at least be honest and call their 'spatial dimensions' geometric/field dimensions or something.. Magic Space is not my cup of tea.
it does imply a certain type of sex offender status though
@@jennyanydots2389 .. WTF?!
@@PrivateSi Are you on the list or something?
Such good content. Hoping you decide to tackle theories of everything someday. Having issues wrapping my head around geometric unity currently if you feel like taking suggestions.
On my to-do list
god, these videos are SO GOOD. also: i know basically everyone hates it at school, but it's fucking incredible how powerful a concept as simple as algebra is.
I am realizing this far too late in life. Math is incredible. In 25 years of American schooling, I have had exactly ONE good math teacher. Such a shame.
Maybe it’s just me but the concept of dark matter and dark energy look a lot like science trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I want to believe it but I can’t, not until it’s more than a mathematical afterthought to explain why equations don’t predict reality
An incredible channel. Mind blowing stuff. Thank-you for presenting it so well. It would be amazing if and when this problem is resolved. Hopefully in my lifetime.
Thank you very much!
I understand nothing, but yet I still watch the video. Weird.
Fluctuation, addition, equation, density, interpretation, constants, it feels like my mind is melting.
This was a great, detailed explanation of a topic i have never seen a good video on, thank you very much! But when you derive the acceleration equation you still just take it as a given that the universe is expanding in the first place, right? A cause of the expansion itself is never given. Will a contracting universe "bounce" back to expansion?
So solving the ultraviolet catastrophe leads to the vacuum catastrophe... Can't this(and other divergences in QFT from infinite contributions) be solved in a similar manner? Quantizing the amplitude
contributions to the energy density? I had a discussion with Zap Physics about this in terms of Feynman Diagrams and they say it would be hard to motivate such an approach given how well the current theory with renormalization works.
I love these detailed videos
They are perfect for undergrad physics enthusiasts
The predicted rate of expansion coupled with the mathematically derived energy density, if I were to put it extremely simply, sounds like the conditions of the universe at or very very very… … very soon after the Big Bang.
Writing this while tackling it 🕳️
I'll make you proud prof 🔥
Another amazing video. I would love it if you do a video that explains why general relativity does not mathematically fit into quantum mechanics.
Absolutely agree, looking at why the perturbative method fails for general relativity would be a blast
Who says the massive number for energy is incorrect?
We can only measure the change in energy, not the absolute limit
LOVE this content! DO NOT STOP PLEASE!
Waking up to this at 3am is priceless... gotta love the algorithm
Extremely well made video! Thank your for keeping on making these videos, I might even think of becoming a patreon in the future :)
Much appreciated! Thanks for the kind words of encouragement
As a Physicist researching quantum inertia, atomic structure, and quantum gravity, I favor the zitterbewegung interpretation of QM.
I think that cosmic redshift is caused by light very slowly losing momentum as it traverses the vast expanse of the Universe through the quantum vacuum.
I think there is just as much negative as positive energy in the quantum vacuum, so it all adds to zero.
In short, zero total vacuum energy and a static Universe. There is also no dark matter. We misunderstand inertia and think there's all this extra mass when none is actually needed.
You are unreally good at explaining this stuff. In the stuff I already understand as a total STEM nerd of 43 years, you basically nail the simplest explanation I've learnt or discovered, every single time, or you teach me somewhat more.
This is a rare treat. Please continue. I'll correct, of course, if there's a reason, as the scientific and didactic process lies.
But for now there hasn't been a *single* instance where I could intervene. Usually mind kind of polymath *would* intervene, but you're just too good and methodical. You cover all the bases. And you're TIGHT AS FUCK! The conciseness and preciseness of your presentation well out-shines anything I've ever seen, online, or off.
The question I have relates to the apparent red shift and the observed time. If apparent time is slowed at the source and the universe expansion causes the source to go beyond the speed of light then of course that source would not be visible.. However if the time dialation approaches infinite for a velocity approaching the speed of light than the observed source would appear forever approaching that speed of light (though at an ever greater red shift) and though the speed of expansion would appear to be speeding up the time dilation over distance would make distant objects appear to have not traveled as far in the time available as closer objects with less time dialation per unit of time.
Thus we would be seeing the most distant objects at a much closer apparent distance and time than they would appear but fo the time dialation, and eventually there would appear that the most distant objects were ever more concentrated as the apparent passage of time at those locations would approach zero.
The expanding universe has gone from doubling in size from 10E-43 seconds to 10E9 years !!! Excuse me for saying this, but that appears to be a bloody big error in calculations vs actual observation. First principles appear to have gone out the window.
@Disc Golf "quantum physics is gonna bust all this down eventually" - Before I posted my comment, I didn't take that into account. You're right, if anything is going to make sense of it, that will.
@Disc Golf I've just finished building up a small library of maths books, a selection of physics books are next. I want a better understanding of it.
Do not stop making these videos dude, this is great
Cheers!
50 minutes of awesomeness right here
My cat runs under the bed when I turn on the vacuum.
The best physics channel I know of. Frankly, it is the first time I hear clear definitions and explanations of most fundamental concepts of modern physics, up to their limits so to speak...But to me a scale factor of 10^120 in the discrepancy of calculated and predicted values is a clear sign there is a fundamental mismatch lying at the root, and a new Einstein is needed to create a new framework to overcome it...
Thank you. I’ll need to watch again to get my head round it. You explanation of the terms of formulae in terms of physical properties was simple excellent.
It makes the ultraviolet catastrophe look like simple arithmetic.
Watching this video, with my limited physics, it’s the first time I have seen mathematically the problem of reconciling QFT with GR. The solution to this catastrophe seems to be intrinsically bound up with that problem.
--
If space is granular, am I correct that this means time is granular too?
Is each field constrained by those grains? Each grain represents the “point” in which the field holds a value? (The idea of a “point” in space thus takes on a different meaning.)
The “fine tuning” argument just makes me think of Sabine Hossenfelder’s warnings about some physicist fixation on mathematical beauty.
Thanks!
@@PhysicsExplainedVideos Sabine Hossenfelder posed that if this “prediction” is incorrect because it doesn’t correspond to observation then what part of the theory has had to be abandoned? I’ll try to find the video.
Having watched the video again it seems that the source of the error must be in one of the assumptions on the calculation of the vacuum energy.
The part I struggle with is that space has a minimum size (a cube with sides of the Planck length) and that QFT says each field has a value at every “point” in space but those points have no size are smaller than the smallest size of space.
Also in this video the notion of bringing to electrons so close together they would create a black hole makes intuitive sense as particles but I have no sense of this in QFT fields. How does the Pauli exclusion principle work in QFT? The electrons just can’t perfectly overlap in the field space they occupy?
More fundamentally I’m taken as given the notion of a field being “taking a value at every point in space”, which I have heard a number of times. But a value only makes sense on a qualitative scale.
Excuse my ignorance. If someone could recommend something for me to read I would appreciate it.
Go to 5:50 in this video:
Physicist Despairs over Vacuum Energy
ruclips.net/video/bl_wGRfbc3w/видео.html
Hossenfelder rejects the whole basis of this video.
I love this channel
But doesn't the expansion of the universe violate energy conservation? why is every equation based on the principle of conservation of energy if the process that it's describing doesn't conserve energy?
Also why is the quantum vacuum energy density calculated with the most energetic perturbation, the fact that it's the most energetic proces doesn't imply that it's the mean energy right?
I feel that those are question that I won't get answers :/ I wish I had an astrophysics friend to ask
Another masterpiece! 👏🏼🏆 Thank you for the excellent videos and the excellent channel!
P.S. Could you do a video explaining the electron orbitals? How are they derived from first principles? Their shapes from first principles.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and planck time and length always feel very handwavy to me
When you get down to it, most of physics beyond Newtonian is "handwavy" as you put it, things like dark matter and dark energy, the cosmological constant, and even the speed of light are all just concepts invented to allow our current understanding of physics to function properly.
We don't actually know why the universe appears to have more mass than it should, we don't actually know what the one-way speed of light is, we actually know very little at all and most of it is theory.
Great video!
I wonder if there are any other explanations possible for the red shift..
I thought light was the same speed relative to anything. I dont understand the red or blue shifts.
@@johndef5075 wavelenth
Inspirational indeed. A most excellent exposition, thank you very much.
I love following your math with pencil and paper
Glad to hear it!
Hmm, just absolutely incapable of using the math, still able to understand some things,
Looks to me that the problem and Reality have a similarity, though somewhere along the line something got inversed, and the equation made a mistake in terms of time,
Instead of 10th of a billion of a second reality ends up being 10 billion Years, impressive how similar the answer is whilst ending up using the wrong passage of time,
Phemoninal video
Thinking the sun revolves around the Earth and punishing those who said otherwise is pretty big. Maybe for the fun of it we should jail the proponents of dark energy.
Awesome video. Excellent wrap up at the end. While the math was over my head the basic problem was very well explained. Thanks for posting this.
> Which means that everything in our universe should be ripped apart in the next millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, which is clearly not happening.
Fuckin' can't look forward to _anything._