Is Dark Energy Decaying?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2024
- Brian Greene and Michael Levi discuss revolutionary observations that may upend our cosmological understanding.
This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Participants:
Micheal Levi
Moderator:
Brian Greene
WSF Landing Page: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
- SUBSCRIBE to our RUclips Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#worldsciencefestival #Darkenergy #desi #briangreene #physics 
Наука
"Did I say anything smart"? Totally relatable 😅
Brian, I have to say we find this model superior to the usual group discussions. Besides the personal details and anecdotes, it comes across with better discussion of the core science. Keep up the good work!
wrong
@@mehridinexcuse me? Some of are trying to eat lunch
What a fantastic conversation. Especially the part around the experimental design and challenges. Michael Levi's passion & excitement was so palpable.
BRIAN GREENE BEEN DROPPING NEW VIDS EVERY FEW DAYS AND ITS AMAZING
You don't have to scream... he's been doing that for years now...
Brian always translates a bunch of gibberish i don’t understand into a language i can comprehend - a real master at teaching
Its still gibberish in the light of day.
His presentation on special relativity is brilliant. There's a 2.5 hour version for numpties like me and an 11.5 hour version with all the equations for the boffins.
Whenever I watch the World Science Festival videos, I double check if I clicked the like button or not. I always love them. ❤
Always enjoy professor Greene's world science festival. I'm absolutely intrigued by the subject. Though it's 2.5σ it's enough to go forward for further investigation. Finding the answer is most important... BC those answers shall create more questions. Which is the fun part.
As always, thank you Brian and WSF.
Thank you very much 🌈World Science Festival!
thank you Brian again
Finally, thank you for bringing this to the forefront. I’m so happy I can cry Dr. Green thank you thank you thank you for having this conversation about what’s up and what’s new and how to shift the gears. Thank you.
Please keep these coming! I keep learning so much, these talks are truly priceless, thank you for everything you do for us Brian!
lets give out props to the engineers
Amazing talk...
Another one already,excellent!
This was so good. Incredibly interesting.
Thanks Brian from 🇳🇿 ❤
Thank you for educating the masses, Dr. Greene.
great convo and great guest Brian!
ooh, ur outro jam is absolutely exquisite ^_^ its so cute, playful and pleasant but alsoo, totally en-capsules a sense of mystery lol.. as a frequent consumer of this sort of media, i would just like to say, very well done! ^_^ so often, you're more likely to come across an intro or outro that is..well, quite annoying >_< ..or ykno, sometimes.. the sound is just way off! usually by being too loud or distracting..either way, all unpleasant and today!, there was none of that here. nothing but a pleasant experience yet again ^_^ so, thanks sm for that ^_^ -EC
Great interview!
Fascinating
Hi 😊
I remember getting excited when I first heard about the blind analysis approach with this observation.
I didn’t even know there was a name for the don’t peek at the results approach to testing, but I guess we all do this when we prioritize accuracy over information bias. 😂
You have to appreciate the hard work put in to get these results!
I remember the plate plotting well. That is so amazing how much this has developed.
This is both interesting and scary. If the cosmological constant isn’t actually a constant. What other rules of physics are not constant? Is it possible that the laws of nature change over time? Will it ever change to something incredibly hostile to life and orders of complexity?
If the multiverse is the true nature of things, then yes, the constants change all the time, but we never see any change that would be catastrophic to us. An interesting thought is that, if I were to ever get on a large spaceship going to another planet, some change that would be catastrophic *to Earth but not the spaceship* could occur, since I am safe on the spaceship. From the perspective of those on Earth though, they would be fine, but in a parallel universe.
Fantastic! 🤩
💙 Brian
Thank you Brian.. your work is food for my curiosity and gives joy… .
Outstanding as always!!!!!!!!!!!
Much appreciation, this is a lifestyle vlog request for Dr Greene if possible, habits, food family etc. If you have one please refference it. Thank you in advance.
People might find some inspiration in ur well-being. Cheers.
Loved watching the simulation on the tiny robots and especially the space/dark matter views. Really looking forward to hearing more data points. Always grateful for any possible theories as well.
Thanks so much for this conversation, it is easy for us laypeople to think so much more is known than actually is due to click-bait media in both print and web. So much to yet know. So cool and so humbling.
I never knew they could use BAO as a standard ruler. I'd like to understand that more. Super hardcore and fascinating. 😃
Thank you! 🎉
excellent
Wonderfulll!!!
Hello from Portugal....
Why the ellipsis (...)? What's happening in Portugal?
Looks like practice vs theory, one of the best episodes
It's more like "something" (Inflaton-like or Inflaton itself) is decaying into Dark Energy.
Well that doesn't work. Our universe's expansion is accelerating.
Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you expand?
Thank you Dr Brian
Dr Brain
I’m a relative layperson mathematically, but I have been following your channel and others in various theoretical scientific spaces from AI/Quantum computing to theoretical physics, and so far have been able to understand conceptually, if not mathematically.
I recently watched your video with Stephen Wolfram on the concept of calculating physics as opposed to measuring (a very dumbed down encapsulation of what your discussion was about, and the thing that fascinated me about that one and this one, as well as a few others, is the concept of space as discrete units and its version of the movement of these units being akin to fluid dynamics as an explanation of dark energy, and then how that could interplay with with the decay of dark energy suggested here. If space is expanding nodes of the discrete unit of space, it could explain the decay of the latent “energy” of the cosmos as the number of units expands the total energy decreases.
I am not sure if that makes any mathematical sense or if anyone can tell me why my understanding is wrong but I love the way these videos make me think.
That detector gizmo is pretty much mind-blowing, in my opinion. Great video!
dont get it wet
I am amazed at the effort put into these experiments. Theory is just an hallucination without empirical data. I congratulate the participants in this study and support the idea that we should be investing more in scientific experimentation. One would expect that error bars in distances and angular separations would be significantly different; angular separation being significantly more precise. To say something about the time evolution of the cosmological constant spectroscopy data has more weight of which precision depends on the experiment apparatus. Mixing data of various precision in calculations are somewhat analogous to coming up with stiff matrices where there are orders of magnitudes differences in the eigenvalues where magnification of inputs are very sensitive to input direction. I was thinking whether the fibers themselves be sensitive to certain frequencies and we would use significantly many more fibers instead of assigning a single fiber per galaxy. This would solve the problem of precision in the fiber location; if the image is shifted the fiber bundle that now has image can will provide the data. The tracking of the individual galaxies then can be done by computation instead of aligning some physical apparatus. I am not sure if it is possible to manufacture a range of frequency sensitive fibers; we have color LEDs which can also act as like lights sensors but we only have a few colors in LEDs.
Great stuff; that equipment is super sensitive, squeezing out as much data as possible. Such an interesting question, we need more clues on dark energy. Hopefully, we can test the theory of a limit of the energy expansion and challenge the cold death theory. Thanks for sharing.
I can't wait to hear the results of the analysis of the new data set! I love the excitement of waiting for a 5 sigma result!!!
@1:02:33 the dotted line should be highlighted on the right side of the chart and the highlight should move to the left. The team mistakenly did the opposite here.
Ty
Have we measured the energy output for gravitational waves?
Is spacetime capable of producing a casimir effect?
Exhilarating! Thank you both for the presentation. 1:02:40 💥💥💥💥💥👏👏👍👍
I'm so glad I'm not the only one leaning toward the cyclical theory.
"The" cyclical theory? There's a few...
@@xXxTeenSplayer Cycling back around to a singularity. I was a mechanic for years. An engine combusting without an ignition source like heat by compression is not uncommon. It just makes sense to me In an applied science way. Not with diesel and oxygen, but more in a nuclear fusion way.
(Big crunch).
@@MadDragon75 Honestly that's the only way the universe has ever made sense to me. I like Sir Roger Penrose's cyclic cosmology better, because it ends (begins) with the heat death of our universe, which it looks like we're going to.
Crunch, or heat death, that won't be the end, IMO.
@@xXxTeenSplayer did roger penrose suggest a dozen years ago that dark matter also decays .i dont think brian greene liked roger telling him that string theory was a waste of time
@@harold22774 Possibly. But I don't think that's part of his current conformal ciclical theory.
Yeah, sting theory is pretty much pure mathematics. I'm not sure exactly of what use it will prove to be in the end, but we'll see.
We
Wow, just wow!
That was very exciting and I love the sincere enthusiasm of Michael Levi. In My thought model where Quarks are held together by the Higgs Field at the beginning dynamic energy (matter) becomes entrapped in a static energy field (primordial Higgs Field) and that settles out as atomic matter, but the Higgs Field in that time is far more dense so the Field Intensity Gradient would be steeper with more intense Gravity. Then 12 billion years later the Field Intensity Gradient is less intense as matter moves further apart. In this notion though the death of the universe comes where the Higgs Field can no longer contain matter energy and matter dis integrates in a flash of light as Linear Energy returns to the Pre Universal State. But the birth to Death of the Universe is not a zero sum game unless Static Energy Loops (Higgs Field) can transition to Linear Energy and all emitted photons can somehow attain the same energy level of Matter Linear energy, which once the transmission rate detergent of the Higgs Field no longer exists all energy can revert, in principle, to infinite speed. And perhaps in that way the Universe recycles.
Hyped, I showed up just as it's kicking off!
A thought. Is space-time continuous or quantized? What would be the consequences of either?
Space is also not flat in the measures of time and distance in larger scales just like the Earth is not flat on larger scales. Light MUST indeed travel at the speed of light C. When distance is stretched light must travel that distance in the time determined by C. That means the light is traveling faster as perceived by us in a more contracted frame of reference. Add to that the fact that a second passes by faster away from the center of mass which increases the speed light MUST travel even more. It’s not complicated. It’s so simple. It’s the very reason things appear to be moving faster than the speed of light moving away from the center of the galaxy because they are moving faster yet without exceeding the speed of light. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
There are three rates to consider. 1. The diminishing effect or draw of gravity away from the center of mass. 2. The increasing rate of time away from the center of mass. 3. The increasing measure of distance away from the center of mass.
Speed is measured by time and distance which change and that changes the speed of light and causation. Distance gets longer without gravity and time goes by faster, both of which combine to speed up causation. The light has to arrive at a farther distance faster when distance is stretched *and* time also goes by faster. *Then* there is the first thing to consider and that is the diminishing draw of gravity which means things eventually slow down the farther away they are from the center mass of a galaxy. (It's not complicated.) 😎
Redshift happens when light leaves a galaxy. Blueshift happens as light enters a galaxy. All things being the same, the light will be redshifted and then blueshifted back again. Except we already know galaxies are different sizes. The distant galaxies that we can see are very large and the mass between here and there is large causing more redshift than our small galaxy can blueshift back to its original spectrum. The more distant a galaxy is the more accumulated gravity there is causing more redshift.
So exactly how are you supposed to read the graph? My take is that less than 1.0 means the expansion is slower than expected at that time and greater than 1.0 means it's faster. Is that correct, and if so it means the rate of expansion is slower than expected over the past 8 billion year or so?
May I please have the name of the artist who created the painting behind you?
pablo van gogh
@@mehridin LoL funny guy! I also like jokes.. What did the half of the particle-antiparticle pair that fell into the event horizon say to the half that didn't?
Are we real yet???
@mehridin Its "Black Hole" by Fabien Oefner. It's a paint drop on spin board photography piece.
Wow! Superb watching and taking in knowledge from a real experimentalist - someone outside the churches of papers on papers - . (Even if interviewed by a priest trying to dismantle his dress of religion.)
Another fantastic episode, thank you Professor Greene !
m^2 = t^2 + s^2. As the total, universal time decreases (what we call the passage of time), if mass remains constant, space must increase. It does so at the minimal spatial geometry (pi) over the age of the universe.
This also solves the problem of where dark energy "comes from." It comes from time
Is it possible that there's no dark energy - that the compounded force is attributable to the force of subatomic particles which repel each other - leading to expansion, except where gravitons create "pools" in space time? If so, is it possible that the "decay" is attributable to dilution of the density of particles which have repulsive force?
@1:00:00 - if the universe doesn't collapse, but instead the rate of acceleration increases which possibly leads to "the big rip." I've heard in that scenario that atoms will eventually be ripped apart, but what about gluons? Isn't another set of gluons is created when torn apart? Would the whole universe be filled with gluon plasma at some point? What about the "fabric" of space? Can it be torn apart by this "force"? (My apologies if these questions are ignorant)
Carnegie Science channel has just posted a presentation by Dr. Guillermo Blanc on a very related topic and a test equipment.
Hey guys, do you have an opinion?
I usually like to call LIGO a telescope .
Whilst LHC is a microscope.
Do you guys have a better word for LIGO than telescope?
It does not have a direction of view and it does not channel or amplify signals the way a telescope does
I think measurement tool is better.
Finally a video that doesn't include roger penrose. That name has driven me crazy as of lately. Too many mentions. Finally a roger free vid 😊
I wonder if it's possibly a limitation of scale that causes it to appear as though the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. If we were to observe only part of the oblong orbit of a planet around a star for instance, it would appear to accelerate the closer it came to the source of gravity, and we would miss the portion of orbit where the planet was slowing. Is it possible that this is some kind of universal orbit that occurs on a scale we can't perceive with our current hardware.
What if the increasing rate of acceleration of the expanding universe is due to different ratios of density of matter and various levels of entropy in space time because of entropic pressure as a relative dynamic of gravity effects?
if the universe is expanding that means the longevity of the universe is stretched. Will the expansion stop? If the universe is expanding does that mean more stars or more galaxies, as the patterns will be repeated or entirely new patterns will be created ? It's more interesting to see if new intelligent beings will emerge in billion years from now.
Diluting mass accelerates time exponentially.
Something I've been confused by, Dr. Greene. If time slows down as velocity increases, and the expansion of the universe is accelerating, shouldn't time be slowing down universally? To my knowledge, no model takes this into account.
The expansion of the space of the universe is accelerating but that doesn’t mean the objects in the Universe are accelerating. If time is slowing as the universe ages, it’s not because of velocity increases due to the accelerating universe.
clever spectroscopy, great sense of catching photons, nano-fiber optics, sensitive
19:37 I love the visual of these two experimentalists in an airport trying to figure out what test to run to explain their weird results, then Brian Greene just happens to stroll by like "hi can I help?"
Maybe there is/are 'things' beyond the visible universe that is/are gravitationally drawing everything in the visible universe towards it/them.
How are we going to celebrate birthday if we don’t have a definite time ?
We invented dark matter and dark energy mathematically to explain away expansion of the universe and rotation of galaxies that break centripetal force observations. They're both illustrations of our lack of understanding of underlying mechanisms. We don't know for sure whether either of those things are as we describe. It could be a distortion of time, that we perceive as distortion in distance. What if the phenomenon is in an area we have no way of examining. Curvature of space producing gravity? What if it's a resistance of time? What if time dilation produces motion for areas of high time resistance to low time resistance? Mathematically we could shift components to various sides of the equation and alter interpretation, without changing the sum of things. And what if the speed of time is variable? What if electrons do decay? What if the universe isn't expanding, but the atomic forces are weakening, causing everything to shrink in unison? What if red shifting of light is just how light decays, and does not show expansion of galaxies. Maybe time dilation makes distant light to red-shift, and it's no indication of real motion? Countless possibilities that conform to our existing math, can have world-changing implications. Like the proposition made a century ago, that gravity wasn't a fundamental field? What if we find out that it is? What if we guessed wrong again? What if we discover new science that permits faster than light travel and teleportation? What if we unfold higher dimensions? I really hope, science isn't exhausted and I hope we're wrong at least about something. I hope we're wrong about dark matter and dark energy. I hope there is something we missed or didn't measure right. I hope we're not at a limit of theoretical physics.
Well said!
What is the oscillation of BAO??? as described it seems to be a pulse not an ocilation.
Excellent -thank you so so much. Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that , with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered:
According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists). So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of your and Adam Reiss' & team new findings of a weaker Dark Energy , of Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe. So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. that Energy is weakening as the light fades.
A comment I left on my RUclips website:
The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.
And so much more.
So does this change our view of the long term future of the universe?
A cyclic universe sounds wholesome.
What if light is stretching out over time due to the effects of moving at the speed of light?
If we don’t know what dark energy is ..
How do we know it is decaying?
Ghosts are see through because in a book
Where's the kuiper belt anti matter extractors
Could we not say that the expansion of the universe is due to the expansion of the space-time ? As the time is moving forward with the speed of light , so is the space, and hence the expansion of the universe?
Maybe the question of a varying DE-lambda is wrong? If only we should ask why the expansion rate can vary...
Is it possible that black hole itself is tweaking the properties of dark matter at/beyond event horizon in similar way the concept of hawking radiation
Let me ask you a question. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant - does this NEED to be confirmed by direct experiment at 75%? Do you have examples of such experiments (Michelson's experiment of 1882/2024 in this regard was only 50% completed). Such 75% experience in as a teaching aid in the modern fiber optic gyroscopic industry…. Can be manufactured as a HYBRID gyroscope. With the help of the HYBRID educational gyroscope, we will be able to demonstrate this experimentally - postulates “Light is a wave of ordered oscillations of gravitational quanta, and the dominant gravitational fields regulate the speed of light in a vacuum.”
Zentnerds are good
I think scientists are wrong about two things. 1. Black holes and 2. Dark energy / expansion of the universe
Hmmm
Good luck, humanity. Yer gonna NEED it. 💪😎✌️
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (book I)
why does dark energy expand and not cause gravity like all other matter/energy?
I do not think we even know enough about it to classify it as matter/energy. Dark energy and dark matter are just placeholder names.
Dark energy is thought to be massless so gravity does not come into play. Beyond this, it is not well understood.
Because it's negative energy and therefore negative mass. It's effectively antigravitational.
We haven't even found it yet and we're wondering if it's decaying. One thing at time lol
👍👍
More that guy
Is dark energy decaying into another form of energy? A darker energy?
If it is that's what they have to name it.
_👍_
Could your data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion. And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly.
👍🏻
I don't believe fish understand being "wet" or can "see" water..perhaps "dark energy space"is like x-rays..we just need a proper tool to see it!
When I take a fish outta the water, I reckon it knows.
I do agree with the last part.
Guess if Einstein can be wrong, then anyone can..oh well, back to the drawing board... Great Interview