Part of the overlooked charm in these and Brady's other videos is Brady himself. The insight of your questions draw out an already captivating engagement and let the viewer participate, drawing understanding out of some heady concepts. What is your background, Brady, that you always see and pursue the 'smoking gun' in any topic, anticipating the clarifications we ourselves would seek? Thank you for all you and the faculty do and share with us!
CedarCoveTigerPark He used to be a reporter for the BBC! And I quite agree, he does an excellent job asking the same questions that occur to me (and many other people)
What an awesome video. More, thank you very much! In the end you're talking about infinite universe leading to a scenario where the particle mass would reach zero. However, a question remains! Why isn't the dark energy acting as an endless, static source of energy for the particles, even in an infinite, open universe? Why the mass of particles would instead be zero (or infinitely close to the threshold of zero?) and not the other way around, meaning near infinite energy? Although that leads to the scenario that I've thought to be the very logical reasoning why an open universe just isn't a valid option. I've always thought that the reason why our universe cannot be open, is the fact that we have dynamics present in the universe. If the universe indeed was open and infinite, we'd have infinite amount of energy in infinite space - causing a scenario where the universe would contain a set, constant amount of energy everywhere. Meaning, no matter where you turn, you'd see the same flat amount of energy everywhere. Instead our observations, eg. cosmic background radiation, tell us that there indeed are local dynamics present, meaning lumps of matter, energy and the lack of those.
Thanks for leaving your questions in this time, Brady. Grey was right. You are an incredible interviewer. And Tony, as always, was an excellent respondent.
Always a highlight to hear Pad being passionate about his work and it's a delight of the few times I get to be lectures by him in the public houses of Formby! Mackie.
WOW. Dr. Padilla has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about this model; the way he explained it was brilliant. Also... "I couldn't just say... okay... number 3, and everything's better;..." HA!!!!!!!!!!
I am hoping to become a physicist in the future which deals with the maths of fundamentals rather then than 'stretching springs in a lab'. Does anyone know what would be the best path to go down/degree to take, e.g. physics, maths, maths with physics etc. Any help would be appreciated.
What I find crazy is the universe is expanding faster than light, and light itself takes light years before it reaches earth from nearby stars, so intuitively it leads me to believe the universe will end far before we even realize it, or may have even already ended, and the laws of physics for the universe may have already changed to accommodate those conditions at that point in space and time, but we just haven't caught up with it yet and we're just existing in the past. I think my mind just crashed, and it's temperately out of order.
Also, since light travels at light speed, from the point of view of light there is no time, which means light is everywhere at the same time. And yet, darkness always got there first.
This kind of reminds me of the problem of measuring a coastline: if you take a satellite photo of a coastline, and then measure the length of the coastline, the answer you get will depend on the resolution of your satellite photo. As your resolution increases, the measured length increases dramatically because you're seeing more and detail (small twists and turns in the coastline, rocks, pebbles, grains of sand, etc). In essence, the coastline is a fractal. Could it be that something similar is at work here, and that's why you get different answers for the vacuum energy depending on the scale at which you're looking? Could it be that the structure of spacetime is fractal as well? (Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, I just like reading about it)
On the note of Brady's comment about an unstable house: So you have an unstable house that leans. You predict 3, which means you mean three beams support the leaning side of the house to make it level. You then test that hypothesis: you make sure its consistent with everything you already know, you test it on a small scale, then if the scaled version was correct, you go for the full fix. If it works, your hypothesis was right; if it wasn't, its wrong. However, something not mentioned is lets say you've used this hypothesis before on similar problems and its worked before, even when you predicted exactly how many beams you needed. That gives you confidence in your system, so you then apply it to unproven areas and either find it consistent or inconsistent. If its then inconsistent, you know your system works for some problems but not others. If it is consistent, you know you can continue to expand the kinds of problems you can apply your system to. However sometimes when you're inconsistent, you were partly right so you suspect with some changes to your system it could be right, but you need to keep it consistent with everything you already know and you have to prove its a correct assumption. You can also choose when to apply certain systems, but I'll get into that later. That is exactly how science works. We have these equations which have been very correct and useful in some areas, unsuccessful in others, and we are running into new problems which look like they could fit with our equations if we teak somethings. We ultimately have to prove our assumption is correct by testing it, and we eventually have to seek a state where we can use one equation and not pick and choose like we do right now, AND we might not have the ability to currently test some of our assumptions, but with how successful theoretical physics has been in the past 5 decades, with the prediction and discovery of things such as the higgs boson and the like, we will continue down the path of tweaking old ideas and running with them on the hunch that they will prove to be correct in the future. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong, but we often know our limitations and have been very successful in the past 100 years. On the note of Brady's comment and Dr. Padilla's statement about universally applying equations: If the equations work on the scale limitations you have, they work. Science will ultimately prefer a state where all equations agree and there are as few as possible, but science is usable. It's usable because when you're shooting a rocket to the moon, you only need to know pi to 6 digits and quantum physics never figures in to your calculations. Most things built on science that humans depend on are justified with equations that are limited but no less correct on a near perfect level. There have been things built in the pass that failed on a hunch, but with the progress humans have made since the enlightenment, we benefit more from trusting theoretically justified opinions than we loose.
Sometimes I think I should have finished school...could have had a better job, more money, etc. then I see videos like this and no wonder I stopped going to school. This is all way to hard to grasp.....aaaaaand science is my favorite subject.
As an accountant performing complex financial consolidations involving multi-currencies, I am always left with a "difference" between the left hand and the right hand sides of the ledger. How is this resolved? Very easily - if the left hand is bigger than the right, I insert an ad hoc "plug" in the right hand (or vice a versa if the right is larger than the left) so that both sides balance to zero. That, I suspect, is all what Dr. Padilla is doing when he talks about inserting an ad hoc number to cancel the energies and bring it all back to zero. QED!
I have a big problem with vacuum energy and it drives me nuts. The way I was introduced to the subject was in terms of decomposing fields into harmonic oscillators. Each of them has zero-point energy and because QFT has infinite degrees of freedom, you get infinite vacuum energy. You can introduce minimal distance, the Plank length. to make energy density finite, but that is still huge. The problem with this picture is, you're measuring zero-point energy from the bottom of the potential well, and that's as good a place as any, due to gauge symmetry. But ultimately energy is just the ability to do work, and you can't extract any work out of an oscillator being in it's ground state, so the vacuum energy should really be zero. However, that kind of vacuum is an eigenstate of particle number operator, so there should be no fluctuations in number of particles. The fact that there are suggests to me that the "real vacuum" is not really vacuum in the sense of no particles.
Hi Brady, I'd request you to make one more video of this as many people here including I haven't fully understood the implications and reason for this cosmological constant. Thank you :)
5:51 Precisely. The mere fact we need that cosmological constant to make our description of nature 'right', hints at some underlying reality we don't understand or even don't know anything about yet. Which means our description of nature, as it is today, must be incorrect or at least particularly incomplete. In my opinion, we haven't yet begun to understand 'the true nature of nature'. Which is of course good news for the boys and girls working on physics and mathematics, who will not need to worry about unemployment for say the next 20 or 30 centuries, as there is still some immensely interesting work on the shelf and some Nobel prizes to be won.
He just calls it a vacuum energy , lightly talked about the the Casimir effect. But he only called it an ambiguous "cancel number",which I do agree with, but in the Caismir effect its called "negative pressure" and "positive pressure" and the energy that is generated is created from disturbing this balance, which a pressure unit is normally talked about as Torr level or PSI, but does not venture out into the negative realm nor does E=mc² which c² is light in a vacuum or 0. If light enters into positive Torr levels its warped and slowed down(same speed longer path), if given a negative Torr level is it also warped and slowed down(Here is the theoretical part. ) in an opposite path and the disturbance created from a + and - Torr level, let you make use of this vacuum energy (aka warp bubble). Would like to see experiments testing this.
I find this video, the associated papers, and the potential implications to be fascinating. Even some bits of these propositions, if true, soundly refute the long-standing idea of a heat death for the universe. Particles spit out energy that makes the universe expand, filling it up like a balloon, until they can't anymore. With nothing left pushing out, it all slams back together to start again. (Assuming, I guess, that reality is a closed system, so no energy is lost as it goes about this stuff, and so the process can't ever peter out.
I'm intrigued but confused, so a couple of questions: - If you have both the spacetime size of the universe and the vacuum energy as unknowns in your equation, how can you say anything about either of them? - If you can measure the change in vacuum energy by varying the distance between two plates, why can't you use that data to extrapolate to the real vacuum energy? - If you know the different correction factors at different scales, can't you calculate them at lots of different scales and figure out how it's a function of scale?
I always love the stuff written on the boards in the background. this one is great, so simple. wonder what the discussion was about that led to that drawing.
What I got out of this was "there's this observable phenomenon we can't explain and for which we don't have any logical justification, so we're just going to invent variables until our current math/theories make some sort of sense again". Seems to me this denotes a more fundamental misunderstanding of the forces and physics at work, rather than some undefined "dark energy" or cosmological constant to be pinned down. Back to the ol' drawing board? Brady, please do another video on this subject as more discoveries are made into this particular field; I for one and interested in hearing more on this as we come to better understand what's really going on.
The difficulty of measuring the vacuum energy seems very similar to the difficulty of measuring air pressure. At least on an everyday, human scale you can really only measure differences in pressure. You need a chamber with (close to) vacuum for comparison in order to measure the true air pressure where you are.
Terence McKenna arrived at this same conclusion in 1971 by extracting the math behind the I Ching and constructing a calendrical fractal model of time at all levels. This guy in the interview talks about time being the journey from one singularity to the next--that we are essentially heading towards the non existence of space and time. This is why Terence named his Model of time Time Wave Zero: because, just based off the mathematics that the I Ching is rooted in, time will eventually end completely. And that was his most extravagant postulation as to what would happen. More often, he was more conservative with his hypotheses. Very weird. The field of physics has become a seriously weird place.. there is no room for stubborn linear thinking anymore.
Huh, that's interesting, I didn't know a big crunch was even still allowed in physics, I thought it was kinda settled that that doesn't work because the expansion of the universe is accelerating (Pretty sure I heard or read that somewhere, not just assuming it). But I guess it could stop accelerating as well and eventually collapse
matter is in the field of space. matter IS the weak spot. all the weak spots are taking the path of least resistance to a less dense area. basically space is trying to equalize itself back to zero. its kinda like a bubble under water. the weak air bubble gets pushed to the less dense surface. i could use a perferated piece of paper to show what i mean if i could draw on here. our earth would be a hole, and the moon would be a hole (both repelling because they have the same charge. because the repulsion is stronger than the space surrounding both objects they get pushed apart and space spills in behind the moon accelerating the process.) just scale it up to get bigger pictures :)
This time Brady totally disrupted the explanation. Maybe those nitty-gritties should fit another video; or maybe a few lifetimes of videos, if he wants to go to subatomic levels of details (pun intended). Please! I beg you! At least let him give us the abstract before cutting him off next time?
So, according to the theory, the raw fact that particles has mass means that the nuniverse is finite, because if the universe is infinite both in space and time, then particles' masses would be zero. So, reversing this concept means that, since we know the mass of the particles, if we could find the precise relation between this and the universe's space time... we could calculate the size and age of the universe.
Let me try to explain the cancellation how I see it. Take x+3=5, you can look at this and know that it has to equal five, and that you have to add a three, so you feel perfectly safe in subtracting 3 from both sides, aka cancelling three. So if I call v the vacuum energy, E is energy, and U is the universe, then we get the sample equation E+v=U. We can observe the universe and know what our "5" is in this case, and we can estimate how much energy there is outside these vacuums. So when they cancel the vacuum energy, they just subtracted their "3" because our measurements have to equal the universe in the end.
This was a very confusing video, and I say that as someone with a PhD in astrophysics (although I admit that I don't know nearly enough about quantum cosmology as I would like). The problem with these sort of ideas is that they are ad hoc constructions, invented to try and fix a problem we don't really fully understand. Also, the requirement that the universe has to collapse at some point in order for the calculations to work, is at odds with the fact that the cosmological constant causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, and I don't see what mechanism could cause this process to halt. What we really need is a theory that explains and predicts the value of the cosmological constant from first principles. And I don't think we'll be able to do that until we have a fully functional theory of quantum gravity.
Here's my two cents. It's long and I'm not physics doctor, but here is my idea. We know that if we add a cosmological constant to the general laws of relativity that it makes the universe expand, so the universe expanding is essentially that cosmological constant. If we think of the universe as an energy field, like general relativity assumes, we know that particles are really crests of waves in a certain energy field. If you apply a large amount of energy to an energy field or something like it like the surface water, you know the interference causes peaks, or particles, and if the field could expand, it would until it found a medium and settled. This would cause the universe expanding to essentially be the reaction the energy field of the universe to the big bang, or when the large amount of interference was added to the universe. Perhaps the disconnect in applying the cosmological constant is in the fact that the universe is accelerating. Perhaps the current constant being added is not including the acceleration of the universe's expansion, causing the value to be inconsistent. But wait! you say. When you use a wave generator on a pool of water, the interference causes very clear patterns in peaks and trophs. The particles in the universe, which are crests by definition, are not evenly spread. However, if you have ever seen two tidal waves crash into each other, you know that it creates a great deal of energy, creating a new interference point and causing a much more uneven spread of peaks Take this further, and when you scale an energy field with any amount of interference, you see it eventually starts to look level. On a large enough scale, the universe looks oddly uniform, but zoom down and there's a hot mess going on - exactly like an energy field. The big bang was some massive interference, and perhaps its so large that particles are actually waves and we don't detect anything else because on that low level of interference, everything, even to the smallest scale, is eventually uniform. This also explains the existence of quantum vacuum energy. You know that if two crests get together in just the right way, they can turn into a bigger crest with different properties than the two alone. You also know, however, that energy fields are always uniform, with there being just as many peaks as trophs; we don't detect the trophs, because our particle centric universe only shows one side of the field. Perhaps anti-participles are the trophs; a peak and a troph cancel each other, and vacuum energy is a particle and anti-particle coming splitting and coming together, that would represent vacuum energy. If you put enough energy into a wave machine, you no its possible for large crests and trophs to form in areas and patterns completely separate from where the energy originated. If you take this theory further, it predicts the big rip. If the universe is an energy field whose expansion is being driven by a large interference event, then at some point when it levels out you have very low peaks and trophs, This would represent particles, atoms, and anti-particles to basically disappear from existence because we only detect particles and anti-particles when the peaks and trophs have a large amount of disparity. No math to back this up, no idea of its consistent with other fields not mentioned or inferred, but from what I know about physics from a macro point of view, it seems like a good idea. I'm open to criticism and proof that this could be very wrong.
I have a question. Check out the equation at the beginning. What does it mean when the differential comes right after the integral sign, followed by a long string of variables? In this case, I am talking about what looks like Int(dⁿx∙√g·...
8 years late, but It means the same thing that it would if the differential was after the variables. An integral is just an infinite sum of (differential width * integrand value); because these are multiplied the order doesn't matter. The d^4x just means that the differentials are like "4 dimensional infinitesimal volumes"
This was a great video. I love videos that are all about current cutting edge research and theories. So does this theory completely rule out a hyperbolic or flat universe? Does it have to be spherical? Or is this prediction completely unrelated to that question? Because, if I understood correctly, a spherical universe would be one which has such a big crunch, while a flat one would have a heat death and a hyperbolic one would just expand indefinitely, right? This channel has reached that level multiple times already, and so, if I recall correctly, have Numberphile, Periodic Videos, and Deep Sky Videos. However, I can't quite say that about Computerphile. I hope that one will get there soon too. (Right now it's pretty much "just" covering the basics. Which, I guess, is fine, since it's a younger channel) TL;DR please do more day-to-day-work. Across all channels :D
why can we just "cancel" out some number because it doesnt work with our current theory and measurement. Is it not surely an indication that we dont understand something and considering a value to counter-act what we dont see is not really solving the problem as to where that value comes from?
It is exactly there to cancel out stuff we don't understand, on purpose. We don't want our theories to be sensitive to strange high-energy phenomena that we don't yet understand (which is where the "bad" large numbers/infinities come from), so we have to cancel out that stuff. If we had an ultimate theory of everything, we hopefully wouldn't have to do these cancellations in that theory. But until then, it is necessary :).
It is not that it doesn't work with current theory. It it used to match reality when not every last bit can be accounted for. Imagine the we know the answer to a problem is 42. We see our paper has the numbers 20, 21, and 0.999. While we may not be able to see the 0.111 or even know if it is 0.001, 0.010, and 0.100 that we can't see, but we know it is there.
ok so the cancelling out explains the stuff we dont know... however, surely if we decide what we cancel out, we can reach a constant that may not be a legitimate value. When we start to see things like 2 x the cosmological constant its a bit acceptable but maybe we will see very complex fractions of the constant used in equations. for me, it is used to try to simplify certain aspects but it could turn around and bite us in the ass later by assuming its just something "we dont understand"
Well the whole point of doing it is so that you force certain predictions to match up with observations properly. So in the cosmological constant case, you get wildly the wrong answer unless you do such a trick. But once you do this matching, your theory can then predict many other things correctly without such "cheating".
I'm going to extend Brady's metaphor to the limits. Imagine we are in a house. By dropping objects, we can see that the floor is perpendicular to the direction of gravity. But we have a metal detector that tells us how far away the closest metal is. As we scan the floor, we see that the metal slopes away. If the foundation was built only on metal, the house would be wonky. At this time, we haven't discovered anything that is not the house or metal, so we can't explain why we aren't wonky. So, we measure the slope, and cancel the "wonky factor" with this measurement. Later on we may discover dirt, and figure out that there must be dirt which makes the house non-wonky, but until that time the cancellation factor allows us to make further progress and understand more about what we do know.
QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY: Premise 1. Since there is Cause (or Source) there is Effect (change or time). Premise 2. If the Cause is eternal so its Effect. Premis3. The"interval" between Cause and Effect is an Infinitesimal, that is, a simultaneous duality. Conclusion: The physical universe or Effect (mater-energy, space-time) is what is perceived. And what perceives it is theCause (the Source). -ogl
Don't consider matter as a present 'thing' but as a trail of memory/information that is only in existence when it is observed. All matter of the universe definitely equals to zero, simply because it can never be measured together at a common point in time and hence is infinite. The only weak point in the theory is that matter is being considered as a continuous existence whereas it is only a temporary memory/information trail of vibrations/movement of particles at all levels and cannot be ever observed collectively as a whole matter of the universe. Total matter of the universe just seems to be definite because it seems to be constantly changing properties whenever it is observed at any scale. Total matter of the universe is always zero. It seems like a pop-up but eventually merges into zero, that is, all matter ultimately comes from nothing and goes back to nothing and ceases to exist. Zero is where is the real answer to this theory might be found in. A beautiful theory indeed. :)
I don't know what I prefer now. I was just getting used to the idea of an infinite universe due to eternal inflation models now we go back to the old ideas of cyclic big crunches. Infinity blows the mind, but then again so does a finite space not embedded in anything. Not to mention the infinities of singularities.
Just last week saw a video here on youtube that said one day something to do with the Higgs field will change and all matter will change, we are in a slump of time where things are all the way they are but eventually it will change I guess it was particle wise. So all things will I guess in a way fall apart I am not really sure it wasn't clearly defined. Visually shown as a graph declining from the top left and in the middle the slump occurs and that is now then with a slight rise following this period the graph drops again. That is when things change. So basically it was like a waterfall that falls twice where halfway down it hits a surface and digs it out before flowing onwards, upwards and ultimately downwards. We are getting pounded by the first fall essentially.
ok, somewhat silly question: his argument for why we can't measure the vacuum energy locally is that we have no way to ensure that whatever we're measuring locally is constant at other scales... why does that same logic not apply to other "constants" that we measure, like G or c? Couldn't they also be different somewhere we've never tried to measure them?
If this idea is correct does it predict subtle changes in the mass of distant (and hence: early) galaxies? Would we be able to test the idea through observations of gravitational lensing?
from a mathematical point of view, the cosmological constant has always bothered me. It's like those trick problems where you end up showing that 1=0. You can't just add in a -1 on the left to make it work out. You have to find the error and fix it. Shoehorning a constant into the equation may produce useable results now, but somewhere down the line it will cause problems.
This was very, very abstract, I only got some of it. One question though: If the time the universe will last is linked to the vacuum energy, and the vacuum energy is constant, does that mean the total age of the universe was set from the beginning? And is that information contained within every point in the universe?
if you were able to tap into vacuum energy , after you used it for whatever purpose you used it for, would it be put back? how would it be put back and converted back to that form of energy?
Can you say that the amount of "Counter term" needed in an equation is like magnifying a picture? That the value of counter term is the percentage of zooming basically Here's how I reasoned: The values differ from scales (atomic -> subatomic etc etc), because you "zoom" in more and thus see more particles which has energy? Kind of like if you had a few big stones and a few small grains of sand on a table and you were to measure the mass of them. But since the grains of sand were to small for you to measure, they got left out (and thus missing out on some mass). But if you were to measure more closely you'd see those grains of sand and record them which would basically get you more mass just by zooming in. Can you say this is a correct way of thinking about the counter terms?
Dr. P talked about particles with zero mass. Did he (and the other researchers in the paper) take interaction with the Higgs field into account? From what I understand (which could very well be incorrect), interaction with the Higgs field is what "gives" particles mass. Could this have an impact on their findings? Maybe feature the value of the constant on Numberphile?
Can someone please explain to me how our discovery of energetic particles blinking in and out of existence...and the claim that energy can neither be created or destroyed...are suppose to co-exist without contradiction?
It's almost as if the universe itself is one of those virtual particles that come into existence and disappear in an infinitesimally small time only the universe takes a little longer to do the same thing. OK, a lot longer but I'm just allowing for the possibility that in some super universe, our universe is merely a virtual particle. There's a certain satisfaction with accepting that philosophical symmetry.
I guess I'm wrong, but Neil deGrasse Tyson said the universe stop to exist when the star forming stops because of the expansion if the universe. I thought he said that in a Cosmos episode. With his theory the universe will be empty. I kept it simple because I'm not educated in physics, but videos like this are still interresting.
Sixty Symbols or anyone else who knows, I want a clarification on something. This is in regard to the "balloon model" which explains the galaxies getting away from each other due to the expantion of space. In the balloon model, we can tell the spots in the balloon are moving apart because we are outside of the balloon. If we lived on the balloon and drew a line to connect 2 spots and named it a "unit" then no matter how the balloon expanded, the distance will still be 1 unit because the unit grows bigger along with the distance. So how can we tell galaxies grow apart due to the expantion of space since we observe from within space?
One problem with this is finding points that are stationary compared to each other. When we look out into space all the galaxies seems to be moving and all the stars in our galaxy seems to be moving. Pretty much everything, except local objects, is moving with respect to each other. You simply cannot find 2 spots that remain stationary to each other on large scale.
If the mass of all particles in the universe "talks" to the cosmological constant then does this imply the Higgs Mechanism is responsible for the curvature of spacetime? Correct me if I am wrong but the cosmological constant is a "mathematical fix" to the problem insofar as it does not describe the physical nature of what the constant is. The one problem I see is that if particle's masses are communicating with the cosmological constant over all of spacetime then the constant at some particular point in spacetime can't know of all the particle's mass in the universe since the information only propagates at c. Does this imply that it cannot be constant?
I don't quite get why the universe would end because of this. To my understanding, gravity should "dampen" the expansion of the universe (it's still accelerating though). If the particle masses go to zero at some point in the future, what else would be there to cause a big crunch? Couldn't it be that we just happen be in that very active epoch of the (young) universe and it just continues to grow until the energy density is infinitely close to zero? Why would everything collapse again?
The first question Brady asks, I feel like he skips over the meat of the question -- that is, that while we have a measurement of vacuum energy and a theory for the physical processes which give rise to it, the cosmological constant has no corresponding theory; why is that? If the vacuum energy can be measured and the maths used to establish that the universe ought to have curved to a volume no bigger than the moon, then obviously that's not the whole story of the universe, because our universe can fit many moon-sized things in it. We can plug in a cosmological constant to bring our maths in line with the picture we're really seeing, but that cosmological constant belies the fact that the oppositional force it represents must also be an energy, and energy derives from physical processes, so what is the physical process that underlies the cosmological constant?
Doesn't this theory directly contradict the generally accepted theory that the universe's expansion is accelerating and the end result will be a big rip (where even subatomic particles are torn apart) rather than a big crunch?
Yes. But to call the accelerated expansion an accepted theory for future predictions, is not true. What is accepted is that the universe is expaning and probably accelerating right now. Period. The rest is theory. So, another theory is just as valid.
Ronald de Rooij I think that the word that you are looking for is "hypothesis" not "theory." "Theory" usually denotes an idea that has survived enough testing to be generally accepted by the scientists working in the relevant field.
And Brady's point is why I'm skeptical of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. "Our equations give us a very wrong number! Well they have to be right. Let's make things to make the equation work."
Do these values added in to cancel out numbers have any relation to antibonding in molecular bonding theory? I kind of understand that you have to add in a value in order to have matter/energy conserved.
You were clear that your theory predicts an end to time. Does it also predict that the universe is finite in spatial dimensions too? Also, what do theoretical physicists think about that issue? Do most of them believe the universe is likely infinite? Or do they mean "for all intents and purposes, infinite, but really finite"? Or is a universe of finite size (spatially) currently preferred? (I'm not just talking about the observable universe here, by the way.)
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Part of the overlooked charm in these and Brady's other videos is Brady himself. The insight of your questions draw out an already captivating engagement and let the viewer participate, drawing understanding out of some heady concepts. What is your background, Brady, that you always see and pursue the 'smoking gun' in any topic, anticipating the clarifications we ourselves would seek? Thank you for all you and the faculty do and share with us!
CedarCoveTigerPark He used to be a reporter for the BBC! And I quite agree, he does an excellent job asking the same questions that occur to me (and many other people)
Eric Eaton. Nice humblebrag there.
Thought it would be good to again hear about some of the day-to-day work being done by a member of the Sixty Symbols team in Nottingham!
Sixty Symbols gggggg
Man, I wish you'd post longer videos more frequently of just you casually chatting with the different physicists. It's just so fun to watch/listen to.
This video was INTENSE, and Brady's questions brought life to this interview!
"Time only exists for a finite period of time!"
Indeed!!!
**puff puff pass**
it occurs every time someone gets .01% into a Tree(3) value calculation.
I was kind of hoping he say that the number is 42 ...
francoistrempe I thought the number that ended the world was 666, not 42. Gotta keep your franchises straight.
42 is the meaning of life.
This is very interesting but looks like way too much complex to be reduce in one single video : could we have more of it ?
It is nice to see videos explaining actual research! It would be better if this were to be extended to include even more technical details!
What an awesome video. More, thank you very much!
In the end you're talking about infinite universe leading to a scenario where the particle mass would reach zero. However, a question remains!
Why isn't the dark energy acting as an endless, static source of energy for the particles, even in an infinite, open universe? Why the mass of particles would instead be zero (or infinitely close to the threshold of zero?) and not the other way around, meaning near infinite energy?
Although that leads to the scenario that I've thought to be the very logical reasoning why an open universe just isn't a valid option.
I've always thought that the reason why our universe cannot be open, is the fact that we have dynamics present in the universe. If the universe indeed was open and infinite, we'd have infinite amount of energy in infinite space - causing a scenario where the universe would contain a set, constant amount of energy everywhere. Meaning, no matter where you turn, you'd see the same flat amount of energy everywhere.
Instead our observations, eg. cosmic background radiation, tell us that there indeed are local dynamics present, meaning lumps of matter, energy and the lack of those.
does a vacuum have any energy? it depends if it's plugged in or not!. ba dum tssss
Is there an unedited version of this on another one of your channels somewhere? I'm very interested in hearing the full interview.
keep episodes like this coming please
Thanks for leaving your questions in this time, Brady. Grey was right. You are an incredible interviewer. And Tony, as always, was an excellent respondent.
Always a highlight to hear Pad being passionate about his work and it's a delight of the few times I get to be lectures by him in the public houses of Formby! Mackie.
WOW. Dr. Padilla has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about this model; the way he explained it was brilliant.
Also... "I couldn't just say... okay... number 3, and everything's better;..." HA!!!!!!!!!!
I am hoping to become a physicist in the future which deals with the maths of fundamentals rather then than 'stretching springs in a lab'. Does anyone know what would be the best path to go down/degree to take, e.g. physics, maths, maths with physics etc. Any help would be appreciated.
Love that you take your work to the pub!
What I find crazy is the universe is expanding faster than light, and light itself takes light years before it reaches earth from nearby stars, so intuitively it leads me to believe the universe will end far before we even realize it, or may have even already ended, and the laws of physics for the universe may have already changed to accommodate those conditions at that point in space and time, but we just haven't caught up with it yet and we're just existing in the past.
I think my mind just crashed, and it's temperately out of order.
Also, since light travels at light speed, from the point of view of light there is no time, which means light is everywhere at the same time. And yet, darkness always got there first.
This kind of reminds me of the problem of measuring a coastline: if you take a satellite photo of a coastline, and then measure the length of the coastline, the answer you get will depend on the resolution of your satellite photo. As your resolution increases, the measured length increases dramatically because you're seeing more and detail (small twists and turns in the coastline, rocks, pebbles, grains of sand, etc).
In essence, the coastline is a fractal.
Could it be that something similar is at work here, and that's why you get different answers for the vacuum energy depending on the scale at which you're looking?
Could it be that the structure of spacetime is fractal as well?
(Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, I just like reading about it)
On the note of Brady's comment about an unstable house:
So you have an unstable house that leans. You predict 3, which means you mean three beams support the leaning side of the house to make it level. You then test that hypothesis: you make sure its consistent with everything you already know, you test it on a small scale, then if the scaled version was correct, you go for the full fix. If it works, your hypothesis was right; if it wasn't, its wrong. However, something not mentioned is lets say you've used this hypothesis before on similar problems and its worked before, even when you predicted exactly how many beams you needed. That gives you confidence in your system, so you then apply it to unproven areas and either find it consistent or inconsistent. If its then inconsistent, you know your system works for some problems but not others. If it is consistent, you know you can continue to expand the kinds of problems you can apply your system to. However sometimes when you're inconsistent, you were partly right so you suspect with some changes to your system it could be right, but you need to keep it consistent with everything you already know and you have to prove its a correct assumption. You can also choose when to apply certain systems, but I'll get into that later.
That is exactly how science works. We have these equations which have been very correct and useful in some areas, unsuccessful in others, and we are running into new problems which look like they could fit with our equations if we teak somethings. We ultimately have to prove our assumption is correct by testing it, and we eventually have to seek a state where we can use one equation and not pick and choose like we do right now, AND we might not have the ability to currently test some of our assumptions, but with how successful theoretical physics has been in the past 5 decades, with the prediction and discovery of things such as the higgs boson and the like, we will continue down the path of tweaking old ideas and running with them on the hunch that they will prove to be correct in the future. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong, but we often know our limitations and have been very successful in the past 100 years.
On the note of Brady's comment and Dr. Padilla's statement about universally applying equations:
If the equations work on the scale limitations you have, they work. Science will ultimately prefer a state where all equations agree and there are as few as possible, but science is usable. It's usable because when you're shooting a rocket to the moon, you only need to know pi to 6 digits and quantum physics never figures in to your calculations. Most things built on science that humans depend on are justified with equations that are limited but no less correct on a near perfect level. There have been things built in the pass that failed on a hunch, but with the progress humans have made since the enlightenment, we benefit more from trusting theoretically justified opinions than we loose.
Vacuum energy is easy to measure, just look for the wattage on the bottom of the vacuum cleaner.
It makes instinctive sense that the universe would end/die, just like everything else ends/dies...galaxies, planets, stars, plants, animals, people...
OK. Got the video paused at 0:00. I've read the title, noted the running length, and strapped myself in.
Lay it on me!
LaMaisondeCasaHouse ha - hope you enjoyed it
Sometimes I think I should have finished school...could have had a better job, more money, etc. then I see videos like this and no wonder I stopped going to school. This is all way to hard to grasp.....aaaaaand science is my favorite subject.
As an accountant performing complex financial consolidations involving multi-currencies, I am always left with a "difference" between the left hand and the right hand sides of the ledger. How is this resolved? Very easily - if the left hand is bigger than the right, I insert an ad hoc "plug" in the right hand (or vice a versa if the right is larger than the left) so that both sides balance to zero. That, I suspect, is all what Dr. Padilla is doing when he talks about inserting an ad hoc number to cancel the energies and bring it all back to zero. QED!
I have a big problem with vacuum energy and it drives me nuts. The way I was introduced to the subject was in terms of decomposing fields into harmonic oscillators. Each of them has zero-point energy and because QFT has infinite degrees of freedom, you get infinite vacuum energy. You can introduce minimal distance, the Plank length. to make energy density finite, but that is still huge. The problem with this picture is, you're measuring zero-point energy from the bottom of the potential well, and that's as good a place as any, due to gauge symmetry. But ultimately energy is just the ability to do work, and you can't extract any work out of an oscillator being in it's ground state, so the vacuum energy should really be zero. However, that kind of vacuum is an eigenstate of particle number operator, so there should be no fluctuations in number of particles. The fact that there are suggests to me that the "real vacuum" is not really vacuum in the sense of no particles.
Before watching this video I thought that I was starting to understand some bits of quantum mechanics.
This field is definitely focked op
On the ball with good questions today Brady.
The sound in this video seems to be gone :(
Hi Brady, I'd request you to make one more video of this as many people here including I haven't fully understood the implications and reason for this cosmological constant. Thank you :)
5:51 Precisely. The mere fact we need that cosmological constant to make our description of nature 'right', hints at some underlying reality we don't understand or even don't know anything about yet. Which means our description of nature, as it is today, must be incorrect or at least particularly incomplete. In my opinion, we haven't yet begun to understand 'the true nature of nature'. Which is of course good news for the boys and girls working on physics and mathematics, who will not need to worry about unemployment for say the next 20 or 30 centuries, as there is still some immensely interesting work on the shelf and some Nobel prizes to be won.
He just calls it a vacuum energy , lightly talked about the the Casimir effect. But he only called it an ambiguous "cancel number",which I do agree with, but in the Caismir effect its called "negative pressure" and "positive pressure" and the energy that is generated is created from disturbing this balance, which a pressure unit is normally talked about as Torr level or PSI, but does not venture out into the negative realm nor does E=mc² which c² is light in a vacuum or 0. If light enters into positive Torr levels its warped and slowed down(same speed longer path), if given a negative Torr level is it also warped and slowed down(Here is the theoretical part. ) in an opposite path and the disturbance created from a + and - Torr level, let you make use of this vacuum energy (aka warp bubble). Would like to see experiments testing this.
The number is 42!
"Time only exists for a limited amount of time."
That seems somehow circular
I find this video, the associated papers, and the potential implications to be fascinating. Even some bits of these propositions, if true, soundly refute the long-standing idea of a heat death for the universe. Particles spit out energy that makes the universe expand, filling it up like a balloon, until they can't anymore. With nothing left pushing out, it all slams back together to start again. (Assuming, I guess, that reality is a closed system, so no energy is lost as it goes about this stuff, and so the process can't ever peter out.
So, anyone up for dinner in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
But I'll stay veggie on that one.
I'm intrigued but confused, so a couple of questions:
- If you have both the spacetime size of the universe and the vacuum energy as unknowns in your equation, how can you say anything about either of them?
- If you can measure the change in vacuum energy by varying the distance between two plates, why can't you use that data to extrapolate to the real vacuum energy?
- If you know the different correction factors at different scales, can't you calculate them at lots of different scales and figure out how it's a function of scale?
This whole video went straight over my head.
I always love the stuff written on the boards in the background. this one is great, so simple. wonder what the discussion was about that led to that drawing.
It looks like part of an umfinishedFeyman diagram
Absolutely fascinating and brilliant!
bruinflight thanks
I like this video very much, I learned a lot!
"Number 3!" The answer to everything.
no, 42
What I got out of this was "there's this observable phenomenon we can't explain and for which we don't have any logical justification, so we're just going to invent variables until our current math/theories make some sort of sense again".
Seems to me this denotes a more fundamental misunderstanding of the forces and physics at work, rather than some undefined "dark energy" or cosmological constant to be pinned down. Back to the ol' drawing board?
Brady, please do another video on this subject as more discoveries are made into this particular field; I for one and interested in hearing more on this as we come to better understand what's really going on.
AMAZING CAMERA WORK
The difficulty of measuring the vacuum energy seems very similar to the difficulty of measuring air pressure. At least on an everyday, human scale you can really only measure differences in pressure. You need a chamber with (close to) vacuum for comparison in order to measure the true air pressure where you are.
"Time only exists for a finite period of time." This seems nonsensical. How is time defined when time doesn't exist?
He didn't say time doesn't exist
Nice Video !! Hope to see more of these types.
A series needs to be done where the professors read and explain their publications
I try to combine the cosmological constant and the schrodinger solution on the planck scale.
I used planck units.
At the end I went back to SI units to compare with the measured vacuum energy density (0.63 10^-9 J/m^3.)
Combine:
1) Einstein, cosmological constant
2) Schrödinger solution
3) Planck units
Result:
- vacuum catastrophe solved?
1)Einstein, cosmological constant
Λ = (8π 𝐺 ƐΛ)/(𝑐^4)
Planck units:
G=1
c=1
Λ (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = (8π ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
1.1056 10^-52 (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = 8π ƐΛ
0.001149 10^-120 = ƐΛ
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1
2)Schrödinger solution, n=1
(ℎbar^2 𝑛^2 𝜋^2) / (2𝑚𝐿^2) = E
Planck units
hbar=1
n=1
m= mplanck =1
L= Lplanck=1
0.5 𝜋^2= E
1= E/0.5 𝜋^2
3)Einstein, Cosmological Constant = Schrödinger solution
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 = E/0.5 𝜋^2
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ Eplanck
Eplanck =1
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ
0.567 10^-122 = ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
0.567 10^-122 1.9561 10^9 /(1.61625502 10^-35)^3= ƐΛ [J/m^3]
ƐΛ = 2.627 10^-9 [J/m^3]
Measured: 0.63 10^-9 [J/m^3]
I am looking forward to your response.
Can you do a video that compares the ideas of the big crunch and the big rip?
I'm under the impression that I didn't understand the video to confidently comment.
excellent episode, I love stuff like this
Terence McKenna arrived at this same conclusion in 1971 by extracting the math behind the I Ching and constructing a calendrical fractal model of time at all levels. This guy in the interview talks about time being the journey from one singularity to the next--that we are essentially heading towards the non existence of space and time. This is why Terence named his Model of time Time Wave Zero: because, just based off the mathematics that the I Ching is rooted in, time will eventually end completely. And that was his most extravagant postulation as to what would happen. More often, he was more conservative with his hypotheses. Very weird. The field of physics has become a seriously weird place.. there is no room for stubborn linear thinking anymore.
Huh, that's interesting, I didn't know a big crunch was even still allowed in physics, I thought it was kinda settled that that doesn't work because the expansion of the universe is accelerating (Pretty sure I heard or read that somewhere, not just assuming it). But I guess it could stop accelerating as well and eventually collapse
I believe you are absolutely right! lol
I was also really surprised.
This video would have made perfect sense if they dumped a bucket of ice water on him at the end!
matter is in the field of space. matter IS the weak spot. all the weak spots are taking the path of least resistance to a less dense area. basically space is trying to equalize itself back to zero. its kinda like a bubble under water. the weak air bubble gets pushed to the less dense surface. i could use a perferated piece of paper to show what i mean if i could draw on here. our earth would be a hole, and the moon would be a hole (both repelling because they have the same charge. because the repulsion is stronger than the space surrounding both objects they get pushed apart and space spills in behind the moon accelerating the process.) just scale it up to get bigger pictures :)
I absolutely love listening to all of these smart people. Even though I only understand a small percentage of what they are saying.
Me too, and I think we're not alone.
This time Brady totally disrupted the explanation. Maybe those nitty-gritties should fit another video; or maybe a few lifetimes of videos, if he wants to go to subatomic levels of details (pun intended). Please! I beg you! At least let him give us the abstract before cutting him off next time?
So, according to the theory, the raw fact that particles has mass means that the nuniverse is finite, because if the universe is infinite both in space and time, then particles' masses would be zero. So, reversing this concept means that, since we know the mass of the particles, if we could find the precise relation between this and the universe's space time... we could calculate the size and age of the universe.
Let me try to explain the cancellation how I see it. Take x+3=5, you can look at this and know that it has to equal five, and that you have to add a three, so you feel perfectly safe in subtracting 3 from both sides, aka cancelling three. So if I call v the vacuum energy, E is energy, and U is the universe, then we get the sample equation E+v=U. We can observe the universe and know what our "5" is in this case, and we can estimate how much energy there is outside these vacuums. So when they cancel the vacuum energy, they just subtracted their "3" because our measurements have to equal the universe in the end.
Wow. I don't think that I really get it but that was really interesting! Keep up the good work! Both of you :)
Why has there never been a dedicated sixty symbols video on supersymmetry? I would be interested
This was a very confusing video, and I say that as someone with a PhD in astrophysics (although I admit that I don't know nearly enough about quantum cosmology as I would like). The problem with these sort of ideas is that they are ad hoc constructions, invented to try and fix a problem we don't really fully understand. Also, the requirement that the universe has to collapse at some point in order for the calculations to work, is at odds with the fact that the cosmological constant causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, and I don't see what mechanism could cause this process to halt.
What we really need is a theory that explains and predicts the value of the cosmological constant from first principles. And I don't think we'll be able to do that until we have a fully functional theory of quantum gravity.
Here's my two cents. It's long and I'm not physics doctor, but here is my idea.
We know that if we add a cosmological constant to the general laws of relativity that it makes the universe expand, so the universe expanding is essentially that cosmological constant. If we think of the universe as an energy field, like general relativity assumes, we know that particles are really crests of waves in a certain energy field. If you apply a large amount of energy to an energy field or something like it like the surface water, you know the interference causes peaks, or particles, and if the field could expand, it would until it found a medium and settled. This would cause the universe expanding to essentially be the reaction the energy field of the universe to the big bang, or when the large amount of interference was added to the universe.
Perhaps the disconnect in applying the cosmological constant is in the fact that the universe is accelerating. Perhaps the current constant being added is not including the acceleration of the universe's expansion, causing the value to be inconsistent.
But wait! you say. When you use a wave generator on a pool of water, the interference causes very clear patterns in peaks and trophs. The particles in the universe, which are crests by definition, are not evenly spread. However, if you have ever seen two tidal waves crash into each other, you know that it creates a great deal of energy, creating a new interference point and causing a much more uneven spread of peaks Take this further, and when you scale an energy field with any amount of interference, you see it eventually starts to look level. On a large enough scale, the universe looks oddly uniform, but zoom down and there's a hot mess going on - exactly like an energy field. The big bang was some massive interference, and perhaps its so large that particles are actually waves and we don't detect anything else because on that low level of interference, everything, even to the smallest scale, is eventually uniform.
This also explains the existence of quantum vacuum energy. You know that if two crests get together in just the right way, they can turn into a bigger crest with different properties than the two alone. You also know, however, that energy fields are always uniform, with there being just as many peaks as trophs; we don't detect the trophs, because our particle centric universe only shows one side of the field. Perhaps anti-participles are the trophs; a peak and a troph cancel each other, and vacuum energy is a particle and anti-particle coming splitting and coming together, that would represent vacuum energy. If you put enough energy into a wave machine, you no its possible for large crests and trophs to form in areas and patterns completely separate from where the energy originated.
If you take this theory further, it predicts the big rip. If the universe is an energy field whose expansion is being driven by a large interference event, then at some point when it levels out you have very low peaks and trophs, This would represent particles, atoms, and anti-particles to basically disappear from existence because we only detect particles and anti-particles when the peaks and trophs have a large amount of disparity.
No math to back this up, no idea of its consistent with other fields not mentioned or inferred, but from what I know about physics from a macro point of view, it seems like a good idea. I'm open to criticism and proof that this could be very wrong.
I have a question. Check out the equation at the beginning. What does it mean when the differential comes right after the integral sign, followed by a long string of variables? In this case, I am talking about what looks like
Int(dⁿx∙√g·...
8 years late, but
It means the same thing that it would if the differential was after the variables. An integral is just an infinite sum of (differential width * integrand value); because these are multiplied the order doesn't matter. The d^4x just means that the differentials are like "4 dimensional infinitesimal volumes"
This was a great video. I love videos that are all about current cutting edge research and theories.
So does this theory completely rule out a hyperbolic or flat universe? Does it have to be spherical? Or is this prediction completely unrelated to that question? Because, if I understood correctly, a spherical universe would be one which has such a big crunch, while a flat one would have a heat death and a hyperbolic one would just expand indefinitely, right?
This channel has reached that level multiple times already, and so, if I recall correctly, have Numberphile, Periodic Videos, and Deep Sky Videos. However, I can't quite say that about Computerphile. I hope that one will get there soon too. (Right now it's pretty much "just" covering the basics. Which, I guess, is fine, since it's a younger channel)
TL;DR please do more day-to-day-work. Across all channels :D
why can we just "cancel" out some number because it doesnt work with our current theory and measurement. Is it not surely an indication that we dont understand something and considering a value to counter-act what we dont see is not really solving the problem as to where that value comes from?
It is exactly there to cancel out stuff we don't understand, on purpose. We don't want our theories to be sensitive to strange high-energy phenomena that we don't yet understand (which is where the "bad" large numbers/infinities come from), so we have to cancel out that stuff. If we had an ultimate theory of everything, we hopefully wouldn't have to do these cancellations in that theory. But until then, it is necessary :).
It is not that it doesn't work with current theory. It it used to match reality when not every last bit can be accounted for.
Imagine the we know the answer to a problem is 42. We see our paper has the numbers 20, 21, and 0.999. While we may not be able to see the 0.111 or even know if it is 0.001, 0.010, and 0.100 that we can't see, but we know it is there.
ok so the cancelling out explains the stuff we dont know... however, surely if we decide what we cancel out, we can reach a constant that may not be a legitimate value. When we start to see things like 2 x the cosmological constant its a bit acceptable but maybe we will see very complex fractions of the constant used in equations.
for me, it is used to try to simplify certain aspects but it could turn around and bite us in the ass later by assuming its just something "we dont understand"
Well the whole point of doing it is so that you force certain predictions to match up with observations properly. So in the cosmological constant case, you get wildly the wrong answer unless you do such a trick. But once you do this matching, your theory can then predict many other things correctly without such "cheating".
I'm going to extend Brady's metaphor to the limits. Imagine we are in a house. By dropping objects, we can see that the floor is perpendicular to the direction of gravity. But we have a metal detector that tells us how far away the closest metal is. As we scan the floor, we see that the metal slopes away. If the foundation was built only on metal, the house would be wonky. At this time, we haven't discovered anything that is not the house or metal, so we can't explain why we aren't wonky. So, we measure the slope, and cancel the "wonky factor" with this measurement. Later on we may discover dirt, and figure out that there must be dirt which makes the house non-wonky, but until that time the cancellation factor allows us to make further progress and understand more about what we do know.
QUANTUM PHILOSOPHY:
Premise 1.
Since there is Cause (or Source) there is Effect (change or time).
Premise 2.
If the Cause is eternal so its Effect.
Premis3.
The"interval" between Cause and Effect is an Infinitesimal, that is, a simultaneous duality.
Conclusion:
The physical universe or Effect (mater-energy, space-time) is what is perceived. And what perceives it is theCause (the Source). -ogl
Don't consider matter as a present 'thing' but as a trail of memory/information that is only in existence when it is observed. All matter of the universe definitely equals to zero, simply because it can never be measured together at a common point in time and hence is infinite. The only weak point in the theory is that matter is being considered as a continuous existence whereas it is only a temporary memory/information trail of vibrations/movement of particles at all levels and cannot be ever observed collectively as a whole matter of the universe. Total matter of the universe just seems to be definite because it seems to be constantly changing properties whenever it is observed at any scale. Total matter of the universe is always zero. It seems like a pop-up but eventually merges into zero, that is, all matter ultimately comes from nothing and goes back to nothing and ceases to exist. Zero is where is the real answer to this theory might be found in.
A beautiful theory indeed. :)
That's a nice dog drawing on that whiteboard.
I don't know what I prefer now. I was just getting used to the idea of an infinite universe due to eternal inflation models now we go back to the old ideas of cyclic big crunches.
Infinity blows the mind, but then again so does a finite space not embedded in anything. Not to mention the infinities of singularities.
Just last week saw a video here on youtube that said one day something to do with the Higgs field will change and all matter will change, we are in a slump of time where things are all the way they are but eventually it will change I guess it was particle wise. So all things will I guess in a way fall apart I am not really sure it wasn't clearly defined. Visually shown as a graph declining from the top left and in the middle the slump occurs and that is now then with a slight rise following this period the graph drops again. That is when things change. So basically it was like a waterfall that falls twice where halfway down it hits a surface and digs it out before flowing onwards, upwards and ultimately downwards. We are getting pounded by the first fall essentially.
ok, somewhat silly question: his argument for why we can't measure the vacuum energy locally is that we have no way to ensure that whatever we're measuring locally is constant at other scales... why does that same logic not apply to other "constants" that we measure, like G or c? Couldn't they also be different somewhere we've never tried to measure them?
In the light of the recent confirmation of cosmological inflation, I heard that inflation would also explain why Ω is so eerily close to 1.
"Time only exists for a finite amount of time."
*Brain explodes*
If this idea is correct does it predict subtle changes in the mass of distant (and hence: early) galaxies? Would we be able to test the idea through observations of gravitational lensing?
from a mathematical point of view, the cosmological constant has always bothered me. It's like those trick problems where you end up showing that 1=0. You can't just add in a -1 on the left to make it work out. You have to find the error and fix it. Shoehorning a constant into the equation may produce useable results now, but somewhere down the line it will cause problems.
This was very, very abstract, I only got some of it.
One question though: If the time the universe will last is linked to the vacuum energy, and the vacuum energy is constant, does that mean the total age of the universe was set from the beginning? And is that information contained within every point in the universe?
if you were able to tap into vacuum energy , after you used it for whatever purpose you used it for, would it be put back? how would it be put back and converted back to that form of energy?
Needs a longer version to fully appreciate the nuances - less edits more content please :)
But good subject Tony and Brady
Can you say that the amount of "Counter term" needed in an equation is like magnifying a picture?
That the value of counter term is the percentage of zooming basically
Here's how I reasoned:
The values differ from scales (atomic -> subatomic etc etc), because you "zoom" in more and thus see more particles which has energy?
Kind of like if you had a few big stones and a few small grains of sand on a table and you were to measure the mass of them. But since the grains of sand were to small for you to measure, they got left out (and thus missing out on some mass).
But if you were to measure more closely you'd see those grains of sand and record them which would basically get you more mass just by zooming in.
Can you say this is a correct way of thinking about the counter terms?
I heard that from recent calculatons the universe seemed to be accelerating its expansion, nullifying the Big Crunch Theory, isn't that right?
Dr. P talked about particles with zero mass. Did he (and the other researchers in the paper) take interaction with the Higgs field into account? From what I understand (which could very well be incorrect), interaction with the Higgs field is what "gives" particles mass. Could this have an impact on their findings?
Maybe feature the value of the constant on Numberphile?
Can someone please explain to me how our discovery of energetic particles blinking in and out of existence...and the claim that energy can neither be created or destroyed...are suppose to co-exist without contradiction?
It's almost as if the universe itself is one of those virtual particles that come into existence and disappear in an infinitesimally small time only the universe takes a little longer to do the same thing.
OK, a lot longer but I'm just allowing for the possibility that in some super universe, our universe is merely a virtual particle.
There's a certain satisfaction with accepting that philosophical symmetry.
OMG everything makes sence now, almost. Thank you, I have teories of my own but this one is great. lol.. xd
I guess I'm wrong, but Neil deGrasse Tyson said the universe stop to exist when the star forming stops because of the expansion if the universe. I thought he said that in a Cosmos episode. With his theory the universe will be empty.
I kept it simple because I'm not educated in physics, but videos like this are still interresting.
Sixty Symbols or anyone else who knows, I want a clarification on something. This is in regard to the "balloon model" which explains the galaxies getting away from each other due to the expantion of space. In the balloon model, we can tell the spots in the balloon are moving apart because we are outside of the balloon. If we lived on the balloon and drew a line to connect 2 spots and named it a "unit" then no matter how the balloon expanded, the distance will still be 1 unit because the unit grows bigger along with the distance. So how can we tell galaxies grow apart due to the expantion of space since we observe from within space?
One problem with this is finding points that are stationary compared to each other. When we look out into space all the galaxies seems to be moving and all the stars in our galaxy seems to be moving. Pretty much everything, except local objects, is moving with respect to each other. You simply cannot find 2 spots that remain stationary to each other on large scale.
If the mass of all particles in the universe "talks" to the cosmological constant then does this imply the Higgs Mechanism is responsible for the curvature of spacetime? Correct me if I am wrong but the cosmological constant is a "mathematical fix" to the problem insofar as it does not describe the physical nature of what the constant is. The one problem I see is that if particle's masses are communicating with the cosmological constant over all of spacetime then the constant at some particular point in spacetime can't know of all the particle's mass in the universe since the information only propagates at c. Does this imply that it cannot be constant?
I don't quite get why the universe would end because of this. To my understanding, gravity should "dampen" the expansion of the universe (it's still accelerating though). If the particle masses go to zero at some point in the future, what else would be there to cause a big crunch?
Couldn't it be that we just happen be in that very active epoch of the (young) universe and it just continues to grow until the energy density is infinitely close to zero? Why would everything collapse again?
And at the end of the universe there is one man standing...one man and his blue box
I've always been a fan of an oscillating universe model. The big crunch resulting in another big bang which the universe has always done.
does the vacuum remain constant or does it vary like barometric pressure?
The first question Brady asks, I feel like he skips over the meat of the question -- that is, that while we have a measurement of vacuum energy and a theory for the physical processes which give rise to it, the cosmological constant has no corresponding theory; why is that?
If the vacuum energy can be measured and the maths used to establish that the universe ought to have curved to a volume no bigger than the moon, then obviously that's not the whole story of the universe, because our universe can fit many moon-sized things in it. We can plug in a cosmological constant to bring our maths in line with the picture we're really seeing, but that cosmological constant belies the fact that the oppositional force it represents must also be an energy, and energy derives from physical processes, so what is the physical process that underlies the cosmological constant?
"Time exists for only a finite amount of time."
If it hasn't been suggested, Dr. Padilla needs a Gromit in the background of each video.
Doesn't this theory directly contradict the generally accepted theory that the universe's expansion is accelerating and the end result will be a big rip (where even subatomic particles are torn apart) rather than a big crunch?
Yes. But to call the accelerated expansion an accepted theory for future predictions, is not true. What is accepted is that the universe is expaning and probably accelerating right now. Period. The rest is theory. So, another theory is just as valid.
Ronald de Rooij I think that the word that you are looking for is "hypothesis" not "theory." "Theory" usually denotes an idea that has survived enough testing to be generally accepted by the scientists working in the relevant field.
Do your calculations distinguish between a universe that's finite in space and a universe that's finite in time?
And Brady's point is why I'm skeptical of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. "Our equations give us a very wrong number! Well they have to be right. Let's make things to make the equation work."
Do these values added in to cancel out numbers have any relation to antibonding in molecular bonding theory? I kind of understand that you have to add in a value in order to have matter/energy conserved.
You were clear that your theory predicts an end to time. Does it also predict that the universe is finite in spatial dimensions too? Also, what do theoretical physicists think about that issue? Do most of them believe the universe is likely infinite? Or do they mean "for all intents and purposes, infinite, but really finite"? Or is a universe of finite size (spatially) currently preferred? (I'm not just talking about the observable universe here, by the way.)