When galaxies collied they rip each other apart while black holes are colliding as well , so black holes arent solely responsible for that since everything within our universe is always in motion. Our galaxy is eventually going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy.
It seems to make more sense when the mathematics is explained. This is absolutely mind-boggling. I've always wondered why we are here and what consciousness is. What was it like before the 'big bang'? And how do you define the universe? Are there other universes outside of ours?
Yes in Islam we have these answer but why bothering my self to translated to English for it you wouldn't believed that a creator is behind all of this called God or Allah and send prophets for humanity to only worship him.
Imo although this model may not account for all dark energy, its a piece of proof that imaginary gravity/mass may exist. Which could solve a number of conundrums in physics. A paper showed that imaginary mass particles would produce the same accelerating around the edges of galaxies that we currently attribute to dark matter. It raised an interesting counter point though by stating that imaginary mass particles would likely pool in voids rather than around galaxies, however if baryonic particles had complex mass, ie both real mass and imaginary mass, then it could solve that conundrum. Also, the large electron problem in Kaluza Klein theory and the mass gap problem in Yang Mills theory, the latter of which is an accepted part of the standard model, both predict masses that are larger than the ones we observe. Complex mass could solve for both of these. And in the double slit experiment, even when we send a single electron through the experiment, if its not measured it will produce an interference pattern. Why is this? What if its real mass fields and its imaginary mass fields are self interacting? That would produce a similar interference pattern. But that begs the question, why does that correlation disappear once measured? Well, Bell's Inequality has a caveat that implies that hidden variables could exist if all of our measurements were inexplicably correlated. I propose that they are because we're measuring them from a particular field. The Higgs field. When the Higgs particle was discovered, it was the first particle to obey Klein Gordon statistics. The theory that proposes that particles are excitations of fields and ultimately forms the basis for Quantum Field Theory. This was first postulated almost a century ago by a number of physicists, including the famous physicist Hedeki Yukawa. He postulated that dirac fermions, which include charged particles, are due to a coupling between the Quantum Vacuum and the Dirac field known as Yukawa coupling. Since these predictions were paramount in leading to the prediction and ultimately the discovery of the Higgs Boson, it leads credence to the possibility that Yukawa coupling explains the characteristics of normal charged matter. And Kaluza Klein theory was first postulated in an effort to explain the apparent weakness of gravity by postulating that the force of gravity is dissipating into extra, compactified dimensions. KK was an attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism, but then when the standard model was shown to effectively unify electromagnetism with the weak and strong nuclear forces, the theory was temporarily shelved. Despite still having utility in a number of future theories like the Klein Gordon equation. Adding an extra compactified spatial dimension appeared to vastly simplify our models, but its decline was largely due to the large electron problem and its inability to correctly predict the masses of particles. Which the accepted Standard Model also struggles with. That problem remains unsolved. Complex mass on the other hand has been postulated as a working mechanism in black holes for a while now. The inner cauchy horizon and charged black holes has been a topic of debate for decades. What if its not just black holes that have complex mass, but charged particles and even the universe itself? Another criticism of KK was why do we not see the effects of an extra dimension even if we can not probe it directly? But if Yukawa coupling is correct, then we do. Charge is a product of this extra compactified dimension. The whole reason why electromagnetic matter self interacts in the first place. And the dirac field could be our universe's imaginary mass field. Which could explain even more anomalies. Magnetic monopoles for example are shown to be mathematically real but we have never observed them. However as a particle with only charge and no mass, it would have imaginary mass and would slip into the compactified dimension through the force of gravity alone. Hence why we've never observed them. I'd also like to point out that not all theories on tachyons require faster than light particles. It may also help to explain observed phenomenon like quantum tunnelling and quantum entanglement. If entangled objects were coherently interacting through 1 dimension, their interactions wouldn't be subject to the inverse square law and they would remain coherent regardless of distance. Also, real mass particles can still travel through this imaginary vector, they would just be pushed out with a force proportional to their mass. Which is what we see in quantum tunnelling. Less massive particles can tunnel greater distances, while more massive particles tend to have shorter tunnelling times. They do not appear to exceed the speed of light, but they are able to get around barriers that they should otherwise not be able to. These particles are just going around these barriers by travelling along a fourth vector that we haven't constructed a barrier for. As long as they have sufficient energy to do so. Like the mathematics of bouncing a basket ball and it accidentally bounces out of the court. We can build fences that account for two directions, left and right and forward and back, but they don't go infinitely up and down and can bounce over that barrier if they get enough energy. Other papers have shown that imaginary mass can serve the function of negative mass in Alcubierre and Lentz warp metrics. As well as to form the throat of a wormhole. And if imaginary mass and this extra compactified vector is what gives particles their charge, then charge could be our avenue for generating imaginary mass/gravity artificially. Bringing us one step closer to realizing functioning wormholes and warp fields. This observation of growing black hole masses could be the missing link we've been looking for in order to develop a working theory of quantum gravity and actually successfully predicting the masses of particles. There isn't one gravity, there's two! An attractive AND a repulsive one that occur symmetrically and simultaneously that may help to explain particle uncertainty and a number of other conundrums that have largely stunted particle physics since the days of Einstein.
Your last few lines make me think of magnetism. They are pushing imto the physical dimension whilst pulling out of Cartesian reality too. They are “spatially erasing” just making mind pictures.. loved your message above, real cut/paste and save stuff for me ❤
When a black hole meets a white hole, They both stare and they both roll. The black hole asks the white one, "Why are you so bright and fun?" The white hole grins and gives a wink, "Because I'm full of stars, I think!" The black hole scoffs and shakes his head, "I'm the strongest force," he said. The white hole giggles and replies, "I'm the one that never dies!" The black hole frowns and starts to pout, "I'm the one that sucks things out!" The white hole jumps and starts to play, "I'm the one that makes things stay!" The black hole grumbles and growls, "I'm the one that devours whole worlds!" And so the two just sit and bicker, As they argue and they snicker. But in the end they both agree, That they're both part of one big galaxy.
Awesome video. I appreciate chapter 3 the most as it shows the issues that are not understood as of yet. This makes it a lot more credible rather than hype dished out by so many others. Thank you! 👍
Great video once again.. Your channel is truly the best when it comes to astronomy and videos related to space and our beautiful universe! I've a suggestion for you. Can you make a video on the new comet that has been discovered which is said to be shining the night sky in 2024? I'd be really happy if you could provide more information on it :)
I don't see how a black hole is not understandable. It's a black -Star, that is nothing but gravity. It's not a pathway to some other place, unless one thinks of dying and still consciousness exists and one goes to some other place ( which it ain't). You stay right here in this universe. Why's it so hard to understand? A galaxy ain't a universe. A solar system ain't a galaxy. Things that are not black holes ( worm holes, gravitational waves, etc) , are not black holes. A hole for a golf ball doesn't go to China, or exit in a hollow moon. It's a hole for a golf ball. There's the same land at the bottom of it, that makes up it's walls, that it is set in. A tiny well. The black star is in the hole. See?
Redshift, and matter have decayed over time from the acceleration of the universe so what this means is we still need to have telescopes powerful enough to detect for dark matter through gamma rays since the energy is what is expanding space to be able to travel at the speed of light. We’re viewing these black holes as they were in the past, so it’s completely possible there’s still dilation in our knowledge for understanding if these black holes are using gravitational pulls to be able to act as a Dyson sphere for say, for collecting virtual particles and dark energy as well. These black holes are repulsive, so it causes the universe to expand.
OK, I've watched several of these lately and I am not sure I understand. They say nothing can escape the event horizon, so how does energy come out of a black hole?
Energy doesn’t come out of a bh, well, except for Hawking radiation but that isn’t exactly coming out from inside a bh. But in general, you are correct, that nothing can escape the eh, and perhaps that’s why Hawking radiation is actuallmpossible, because the photons emitted don’t actually come from ‘within’ the horizon. 😱
@@LuisManuelLealDias Yes, but that's just a "leakage" an insignificant amount that has no co-relatiopn to the 75% of the universe comprised of dark energy. But that's a good guess. It was my first assumption too but then it does not fit with the evidence.
Physics becomes fairytales when the hypotheses require inventing imaginary, conveniently impossible to measure features in order for it to make any sense whatsoever .... which it never did in the first place.
Weather makes waves on the ocean in water. Gravity makes waves in space/time? Is space a fluidic substance in one of its properties? Does matter displace space, like Archimedes in his bathtub?
Extremely unlikely and no. Also, “fluidic” isn’t a word. The suffix “ic” can’t just be added onto arbitrary words, like “filmic”, which is supposed to mean that something has a film-like appearance. Just the word fluid would have been more than sufficient, as in, does it have any properties which makes it behave like, or appear to be, a fluid? Anyway, the answer, TTBOMK, is no, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason it should behave as a fluid. Furthermore, if matter was able to somehow displace spacetime, to where would it possibly be displaced and from where does the energy to perform said displacement come from and end up? My thoughts are that to do so would require new physics, perhaps a new particle, maybe if the graviton ever turns out to be real, that might perhaps be one of its properties, but that’s pure speculation on my behalf. If spacetime was displaced, how do you propose it to occur? What happens in the regions where spacetime is displaced to? There would now be places which have ended up with ‘extra’ space and ‘extra’ time from the displacement, so what effects does this have on spacetime and particles in this vicinity? Finally, gravity can’t actually make waves in spacetime. Only matter can do that, TTBOMK. Gravity IS a wave in spacetime. As gravity is the degree to which spacetime is curved or distorted, therefore a gravity wave is just the same effect but on a much smaller timescale as gravity waves, like all waves, are transitory, whereas gravity itself could perhaps be thought of as a standing wave or a wave which somehow doesn’t oscillate nor move in a spatial direction. By that I mean that, for example, the earth’s gravitational field doesn’t go anywhere, it always surrounding the planet and extending as far as our instruments can measure. It’s said that both gravity and electromagnetic waves have infinite range but I’ve never completely understood what that means when thee isn’t supposed to be any gravity at vast distances from any gravitating bodies. If it’s range truly were infinite, how does one account for the fact that away from any massive bodies, in intergalactic space, or in voids, etc, why is no gravity or gravitational effects seen? EM is very easy to understand that it has infinite range as a photon will keep going until absorbed, if there’s nothing for it to interact with, it keeps going on its merry way. The same is supposed to be true of gravity, but I’m at a loss to explain how.
@@Nat-oj2ucWhat is a spacetime fundamental? 🧐 What exactly does that even mean? 🤔 How can it possibly have any “fundamentals”, it isn’t as if it can be broken down to its constituents, nor is there yet any evidence of it being quantum, so it therefore IS fundamental in and of itself. 😱 How could anything with fluid-like or any other kind of properties possibly emerge from spacetime? 😒 That’s illogical and completely makes no sense at all. From where and under what conditions does one observe or find these emergent fundamental properties? 😳 How does this process occur? Exactly what even are “spacetime fundamentals”, please describe them? The concept itself is implausible, please elaborate.
@@Nat-oj2uc That was my point. If space behaves like a liquid, in one aspect, that might be another property that can be directed, as they did with fluidic circuitry in the 1970's
@@costrioyes there are theories of superfluid spacetime. Also there are fluid analogues of black holes as well as sonic black holes. I'm saying while you can describe some of the properties as fluid it's not a fluid per se. Fluid mechanics can explain part of it but not all of it. Spacetime is a field. Fluid is within that field and due to nature of a fluid it shows some properties of that field. As for your original question I can see the parallels but I prefer to think it's stretched rather than displaced because matter in a sense is part of a spacetime. Also interesting with fluid it's the volume of an object that affects displacement not mass/energy
Can it be like there could be a Conservation law of "spacetime". Like as black holes are sucking up spacetime due to their high gravity, to balance it out the universe needs to produce more spacetime outside the galaxies.
Relative viewpoint: Instead of view it from Earth, try the viewpoint of a constant universe: Galaxies and everything in it, even the rulers, will shrink (inverse of the expanding universe), black holes also stay constant but attract everything and bends space time. And because black holes bends space time more with age, time is also affected...
Can y'all do a video on sun grazers? Quite fascinating! Like to know more information but can't find any so please do one on that I appreciate it!? Hope y'all have a wonderful and blessed day and stay safe out there!
It's like a Kingdom Hearts cutscene; you can say any words in any order: Darkness, Darkness, Light Dark Heart Dark, Memories Light Dark, Friendship Darkness.
Me: Yes the rate of the passing of time away from the mass is also faster contributing to the illusion of traveling faster than C. Not only is distance expanded as the plasma moves away time is also passing by faster. GPT: It's important to note that time dilation due to the presence of mass also affects the apparent speed of the plasma jet. As the plasma jet moves away from the massive object, the gravitational time dilation decreases, causing time to "speed up" relative to the observer near the massive object. This means that the apparent speed of the plasma jet is a combination of the jet's actual speed, the effects of distance expansion, and the effects of time dilation. Me: Exactly! GPT: Glad to hear we're on the same page. Do you have any other questions or topics you would like to discuss? *Me:* Right except that the differences in measurements of time and distance are extreme between a supermassive black hole and outer space where there is no mass to contract distance or to slow down time. *Chat GPT:* That is correct. In the presence of a massive object like a supermassive black hole, time can appear to slow down and distances can appear to be shorter due to the effects of gravity. This phenomenon is known as gravitational time dilation and gravitational lensing, respectively. However, in the vast empty spaces between galaxies where there is very little matter to cause these effects, time and distance measurements can be significantly different from those near a massive object. This can lead to the appearance of redshift, as the light from distant galaxies appears to be shifted towards longer wavelengths.
If deficiency of star forming gases is due to the supermassive black hole accreting star forming gases, why doesn't it then accrete gas from older stars? And how does it accrete gas from the edges of the galaxy?
99.9% of everything you can see is Plasma and all stars sit inside the mystereous Galactic filaments as far as the radio telescopes can see. The Plasma universe theory say that the stars and galaxies are Plasma and that they sit inside the Plasma Filaments, because thats how they got made and also that the filaments are the likely source of dark energy
Dark matter/energy is the "rescaling" function inherent in a static-scale model of the universe. A static-scale universe is the simply the counterfactual (logical inversion) of an expanding universe with static-scaled content. Rescaling is an intrinsic property of any transformation, deemed "requantizaation" in the cosmological context. Quoting from the CTMU... "...whereas it is ordinarily assumed that the sizes of material objects remain fixed while that of the whole universe ... changes around them, conspansion holds the size of the universe changeless and ... changes the sizes of objects. Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion ... among the contents of the universe ...," IOW, instead of light/EM energy radiating at "C" from each and every object, each object can be alternately modeled as "virtually contracting" within its own static, ambient image at said rate "C". "...and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax." CTMU IOW, objects aren't literally "contracting" in the sense whereby they denser or farther apart, rather each "virtual contraction" over any given time period (down to quantum-scale transitions), is likewise a rescaling, thereby offering a descriptive explanation of "time frame dilation", "dark matter/energy", and "functional genome selection" as the outcomes of this generic "rescaling function", aka "requantization". "Requantization downsizes the content of Planck’s constant by applying a quantized scaling factor to successive layers of space corresponding to levels of distributed parallel computation. This inverse scaling factor 1/R is just the reciprocal of the cosmological scaling factor R, the ratio of the current apparent size dn(U) of the expanding universe to its original (Higgs condensation) size d0(U)=1." C.M.Langan, "Physics & Metaphysics" ruclips.net/video/feZzjAmaR7w/видео.html The same "scaling factor" logic applies to any portion of a galaxy's radius, thereby explaining faster-than-expected rotation. Additionally, each galaxy can be independently modeled per it own "scaling factor", which among other implications renders "dark galaxies" apparently more-massive than expected when relying on a distributed model of galaxies. Continuing with Langan's CTMU quote... "Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." CTMU IOW, we already have a straightforward explanation of the "cosmological constant" (WHICH CAN'T BE REFUTED!!!!), Einstein's self-admitted "biggest blunder". Einstein & Co. never realized Conspansion, and the actors, executives, and politicians have formally taken over science using Quantum Electrodynamic hypno-woo ever since (We OWN the science: ruclips.net/video/-rnhB29xCz4/видео.html ).
I must say that your naming convention are confusing. By younger galaxies, one would think they mean (relatively) recently formed galaxies while they mean galaxies formed when the universe was young.
BUT HOW. Do these BHs grow because of dark energy accreting on them, or vice versa? If it's the latter, how does their density "spill out" to create new energy? Via some quantum entanglement shenanigans? I just can't see how attracting BHs may create negative pressure, other than Hawking radiation, but it's intensity reverse-proportional to their masses which contradicts this hypothesis. I'm totally lost.
You're confusing Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Dark Matter may be from Black Holes. Dark Energy is believed to be due to virtual partial formation in inter galactic space, Galaxies are not expanding. However, the distance between them is.
Really? So, even though it has been conclusively determined that bh’s have nowhere near enough mass to account for the rotational speed of galaxies and clusters, you’re claiming it’s still might be possible? How? By what physical process could this happen?
That’s just ridiculous! How could a bh possibly, in any way whatsoever be even a minuscule, infinitesimally tiny “part of the reason he universe exists”?? So are you implying that bh’s must have been here prior to the big bang or whatever started the universe? Again, that just sounds like nonsense. What makes you “feel like” this? What would lead one to conclude such a seemingly nonsensical and illogical conclusion, what could possibly have encouraged you to think in such a manner?
@@aaronperelmuter8433 you say this as if you fully understand the origin of the universe as if we don't know so little already. There is so much we don't know and acting like we have at least a good idea is rediculous. He could definitely be on to something based on many theories we have regarding our universe. If you want me to break this down for you based on the explanations of scientific theories go do the research yourself. Im not saying they are right but saying it makes no sense when you barely can comprehend our universe. THAT is what I would also call to be rediculous.
Got to love the cockiness of the title - "68% of the Universe was missing .. and we found it". No, the Universe was exactly where it always was and nature will do what it has to do. What is missing is our understanding of how the Universe works. I can bet in a few years the scientists will find something else and come up with a new theory and there will be another video with the same cocky title ... no different from Columbus "discovering" America
It seems like the material being taken Into the black holes is related to the expansion or powering it in some way. Like they are structural components of the universe. Everything is interconnected.
68% of the Universe is NOT Dark Energy. There is no such thing as Dark Matter OR Dark Energy The reason it's 68% and 27% is that Astronomy cannot identify the missing amount needed for galactic spin behaviour among other things. I love how this is always presented as fact without the caveat "because Physicists still don't understand how Gravity work OR take into account the mass of ancient black holes from Type III stars..among other sources.
Explain why stars in a same galaxy all have similar speeds. Explain why the visible space distorsions (gravitational lenses) are so big than the mass that is inside is much more than what is visible. _Then_ you can claim that dark matter doesn't exist. Explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating, or prove that this is wrong. _Then_ you can claim that dark energy doesn't exist. That's how Science works. You want to talk science, you've gotta bring solid arguments.
@@Dante02d12 Oh I agree. The problem is that science has initiated Myth vs Science. If you have an untestable hypothesis..ie String theory or Dark Matter/Energy, you have Philosophy and Myth.. As for your questions. That's just confusing the issue. I can't answer..Why don't you then? Simply because someone can't answer these questions doesn't invalidate their position, their questions or skepticism. Don't come at me with elementary school debating tactics :) The point is that neither can they without inventing things that don't exist..or at least not proveably. They don't have solid arguments either.. they have Myth, Legend and make believe BS that is forever untestable. I am NOT anti science. I am just anti BS. And you must be REALLY bored to have been poring through all the comments only to arrive at mine and decide THIS is the person I will troll today to make myself feel good. Have a good one man. And anyway, all this is angels on the head of a pin since were forever stuck on this rock in the middle of this universe and will never go anywhere or do anything in the Galaxy.
@@hanovergreen4091 "Troll", lmao. I just explained to you that we didn't make up dark matter and dark energy. We *noticed* the observations I mentionned, and we *named* the only plausible origins of these phenomenons dark matter and dark energy. We didn't make up anything. I merely explained to you how Science works. But clearly you're not interested. You just _decide_ what is wrong and what is right apparently. As for my """elementary debate skills" : you're the one who doesn't bring anything to solidify your case.
Excellent work! I love this channel's videos very much, everything is straightforward, with Maths and formulas explained simply, yet easily understood by most anyone [even if they forgot high school algebra!] The graphics are superb, and as always, I love our narrator, very easy to follow, expressing curiosity, wonder, confusion, concern, and amusement at the perfect times. Love it, and it is a fascinating idea, tho I am skeptical based on this being based on assumptions yet to be proven anywhere but on paper. "Beautiful Maths" is indeed beautiful, but is not proof, Maths is only part of fact and reality; it does not create or sustain reality, it is meant to support Reality. Very beautiful indeed, but still, make this idea and formula work with average and supermassive Black Holes, and then I'll let myself get excited.
Nobody explains these difficult concepts more clearly than this channel. Well done. Now I am wondering: How can you have a black hole without a singularity? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
As far as I understand singularities are just mathematical stuff coming from GE, this is the best model we have yet since quantum physics cannot handle gravity atm. But we can already be pretty sure it is not correct in it's current form since it violates principles and generates infinite gravity in an infinitely small space where everything falls apart. So currently it seems contradictory according to our model, but the model itself is already suspicious and we shouldn't stick to it no matter what.
Not sure if it’s a contradiction in terms exactly, but a bh more than likely has no singularity anyway. It HAS to have something incredibly small and massive in its centre, but most physicists in this day and age don’t actually believe there is a point inside every bh where all of its mass is concentrated into something with infinite density. Not to mention, Einstein’s theory actually breaks down and no longer works or can provide sensible and useable solutions at the singularity. So, I think we can have a bh without a singularity but for sure there has to be something else there, in its place but what that could be, I don’t have the faintest idea.
The key is to understand what a singularity is, and how it can be formed (or existing). The Schwarzschild singularity, once formed, it inherently leads to our currwnt universe with all the contradictions blown up. Only lacks one key (see Bache, MAB, 2023; actually is a work started in 2015; ended and registered in 2020. Not accepted for publication the reviewers took the ideas as their own, especially which overcame Einstein's 2nd postulate). The bh copies is from a recent work of t'Hooft (in any case a Schwarzschild singularity with the dynamics and characteristics featured in Bache, MAB 2023; 2022 and 2020 if we considered the registered works, ; it is completely plausible and compatible with and to the bh central singularities copies, t'Hooft model; that model hereby presented, aka "a new model" according to the channel owner, is my model)•(
Both Aaron, a central singularity (Schwarzschild) as a central persistent point to create general dynamics (gravity) and black holes (new little singularities, t'Hooft, 2021) for the expansion and conservation of the structure as it expands (quantum) That's only part of my model, I sent it to Universe one year before 't Hooft work came up. And the 2022 Nobel hint (for the Schwarzschild singularity explanation idk if you understand) it is the original idea I based ToE on in 2015 (part is the negative vacuum hereby the creator presents as by "researchers";)• I'm claiming this video, hope it finds you well, and the messages reached you before it was striken.
@@Manuel_Bache Wow! Where can I find out more about your work? Obviously I’ll google your name, but I’m very interested to learn more about your work. Any links or suggestions you can provide will be most greatly appreciated.
Why? What’s the point? A quasar is nothing more than an (extremely) active, feeding smbh. And a pulsar has zero effect on the expansion of the universe. Well, that’s the same for bh’s also, vid’s like this are just nonsense anyway. There is absolutely zero evidence for what’s been said in this and other similar vids. All they’re saying is that there might, perhaps be some connection between bh’s and the universe at large. But pulsars? What connection could there possibly be? They just an incredibly compressed ball of matter, why would you think there’d be any way in which such an object could affect expansion?
So dark energy is an "entity". Part of the definition of entity is: "The existence of something considered apart from its properties." OK. So my question: what, apart from its properties, is energy?
So no law of preservation of mass? Energy and mass are just created in black holes? (This video says that the new model suggests that the energy of black holes just increases, so their mass does too)
Black holes do stretch space from the 'event horizon' to the 'singularity'. But does some of that stretched space, or new space, leak out into our universe? (Dark Energy expands space.)
I fail to understand the emphasis placed on "dark matter" and "dark energy". Best of my knowledge neither of these theories has progressed seriously in the last decade and there are several competing theories, seemingly ignored because some have just plainly excepted it at this point. Am I entirely wrong here? Misinformed? I see no practical value in the study.
I think it's because dark energy has been tied to black holes. Even if we still haven't progressed much in our understanding of what dark energy, it's mentioned because it's been found to be related to black holes
Perhaps a singularity is only perceived by the human or matter who is very physically limited. It is where matter unwinds, but the energy flowing in and around is likely more toroidal and does not feature a singularity to anything but matter. Everything else flows like a river? I’m not a scientist so I’m sure this idea is full of holes. Pun intended
Could dark energy be hawking radiation as that is why black holes loose mass and evaporate could that not be the missing energy and matter in the universe as we do not understand hawking radiation
What if we are missing something for example a hawking radiation like effect from the B.H but leaking matter instead of energy via radiation. What if B.H's excrete a portion of matter when not feeding via a random event as it would most likely be a random cause not a specific repeating pattern.
For that to happen, I think you’d need to invent some new physics to allow it to occur. By what process could a bh excrete matter, and if it were only to occur when a bh isn’t feeding, how is that random? How would a physical process have any knowledge of when a bh is feeding and how does it determine the cutoff between active, feeding states and a resting state?
That’s a tautological statement. From the definition of a black hole you can never send anything out, so anyone “exploring” the inside remains causally disconnected from the rest of the universe. Theory is not all we have though thanks to facilities like the LIGOs, and projects like the Event Horizon Telescope array. These methods don’t really tell you what the interior is like, but saying all we have on black holes are theories is a bit of an overstatement. We’ve literally observed them, and it’s a step in the right direction considering they were only theorized 100 years prior.
Intuitively it makes sense. If you think about density and it's relationship to mass and volume. The black hole density remains constant, however, the space is expanded within just like all of space-time is being expanded. If the density remains the same, but the volume changes, then something has to be happening to the mass. There is another interesting aspect of black holes predicted by Hawking, and verified by LIGO measurements of black hole mergers. That is the surface area of the black hole (as described by the Schwarzschild radius) is proportional to the mass of the black hole. When two black holes merge, the resulting surface area is larger than the individual two combined. It hints at a very deep relationship with space, time, and the structure of our universe.
I think somebody is confused in regards to mergers. Merging two bubbles will create a bigger bubble, but the surface area will be less than the sum of the two original bubbles. For surface area to increase, density would have to decrease. Considering that the two cores are near absolute zero and under extreme pressure, this means the cores are heated up during the merger, resulting in a less dense singularity.
@@somewhere-else Nothing is a fact, there are just postulations that have not yet been disproved. Sure, there is a claim that virtual particles can 'pop in and out of existence' within Plank time, but that a long long way form 'empty space has energy is a fact'. Virtual particles have virtual mass and therefore, according to Einstein, virtual energy. And possibly therefore a virtual fact?
Can someone be generous enough to educate me on the following... From earth if we can see the early universe (galaxies formed after the milky way formed), then if we looked in the opposite direction would we see galaxies that formed before our miky way formed???
It's 2D. Just like Saturn's disks or the alignment of planets' orbits around the Sun, or the galaxies's flatness, this is due to the center objects' rotation. That's why it's called a disk ^^'.
@@franimal86 Negative pressure? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Regardless, why would the bh shrink, if negative pressure even exists, wouldn’t it cause things to EXPAND, as in, doing the opposite of what pressure does?
Look, if you aren't the master of the bright idea in cosmological physics, you ain't no where. And since we don't know what black holes are, it's only reasonable to blame them for everything. #churchoftheblackhole
dark energy and dark matter are just descriptions of phenomena. There is no particle or field which has been detected which can be described as either.
Things popping in and out of existence? You have my ear, tell me more about this "non-existence" environment "IF YOU CAN" please ( I gotta hear this nonsense)!
There's No Dark Matter. There's No Dark Energy either. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 + 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
there is no dark energy OR dark matter? wow you should contact every single scientific institution with these findings, that would get you the nobel prize for 10 years straight!
@@lunahri4173 They already know. That is, real science (not RUclips science) has known that the standard model is getting more and more unlikely. Humans do not like uncertainty (it is in our DNA) so we need to come up with something. I am rooting for the 3 dimensions of time theory with can explain the red shift (not doppler).
🧢 Everyone knows that scientists cannot define dark matter with any certainty, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist like you so confidently say... It is a speculation. You linking 1 article literally doesn't prove anything at all. Why are you even watching "youtube science" videos if you don't believe in any of it, smartass?
> There's No Dark Matter. There's No Dark Energy either. That's obviously true. They're called 'dark' not because we can't see them, but because we haven't got any explanation for 'what they are'. And if we have no explanation for what they are, we have no right to claim that they exist - we might just as well say that our current understanding of gravity appears to be incomplete. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are merely postulations to explain the inconsistencies between observations and our currently-accepted theories. I expect that in time, better theories will emerge which won't rely on the existence of either.
I have always suspected that black holes were somehow related to dark energy. This theory has the ring of truth for me. Nature may abhor singularities and this is how she deals with it.
"Nature may Abhor singularities" sounds true but starts in singularity and ends in singularity. Singularity looks like it's original State. It constantly strives reach back to that state of Nothingness. But what forced it to go into a chaotic state which required laws of physics to govern it from being thrown into oblivion. We see pockets of singularity as black holes spread across the universe .
>~ ♡ ~< There's two origins I think Lefthanded part + Righthanded part makes the whole. Pauli's two valueness is left handed helical wave and righthanded helical wave. The atom is the mechanism of creation and perception..
@@Ryan-gx4ce Of course not. You don't have the background. Probably never heard of Pauli's "two valueness". And don't know the difference between a right and left handed helix. Ask your celebrity scientist to explain the Standard Models "Lorentz boost" and what it's for. They won't.
But Pauli's "two valueness" isn't two essentially different values. It's right hand spin up and right hand spin down. It's the same spin turned upside down. You need spin right and spin left. It's helical not orbital. The two values are chiral and thus nonsuperimposible..
Black holes are vastly overrated objects, they are just a tiny part of the universe and surely dont make out the majority of it's total mass. Dark energy is what's causing the expansion of the universe, it was there long before the black holes, allowing them to be formed in the first place. This theory seems just absurd to me.
I didn't mean to be insulting. To me it just seems, the black star, in and of itself, ignoring anything and everything, that is due of it's creating and existence. Just doesn't seem to be beyond understanding.
If black holes were the source of dark energy wouldn’t they rip galaxies apart instead of building them?
Not exactly , there are black holes that expel matter from within.
When galaxies collied they rip each other apart while black holes are colliding as well , so black holes arent solely responsible for that since everything within our universe is always in motion. Our galaxy is eventually going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy.
It seems to make more sense when the mathematics is explained. This is absolutely mind-boggling. I've always wondered why we are here and what consciousness is. What was it like before the 'big bang'? And how do you define the universe? Are there other universes outside of ours?
We still don't even know which universe we live in.
Will we (and scientists) have the answers for all your questions?
I have yet to see the mathematics explained
Yes in Islam we have these answer but why bothering my self to translated to English for it you wouldn't believed that a creator is behind all of this called God or Allah and send prophets for humanity to only worship him.
Black Holes absorb materials in space, bringing more mass between them. It is the best explanation.
Imo although this model may not account for all dark energy, its a piece of proof that imaginary gravity/mass may exist. Which could solve a number of conundrums in physics.
A paper showed that imaginary mass particles would produce the same accelerating around the edges of galaxies that we currently attribute to dark matter. It raised an interesting counter point though by stating that imaginary mass particles would likely pool in voids rather than around galaxies, however if baryonic particles had complex mass, ie both real mass and imaginary mass, then it could solve that conundrum.
Also, the large electron problem in Kaluza Klein theory and the mass gap problem in Yang Mills theory, the latter of which is an accepted part of the standard model, both predict masses that are larger than the ones we observe. Complex mass could solve for both of these.
And in the double slit experiment, even when we send a single electron through the experiment, if its not measured it will produce an interference pattern. Why is this? What if its real mass fields and its imaginary mass fields are self interacting? That would produce a similar interference pattern. But that begs the question, why does that correlation disappear once measured? Well, Bell's Inequality has a caveat that implies that hidden variables could exist if all of our measurements were inexplicably correlated. I propose that they are because we're measuring them from a particular field. The Higgs field.
When the Higgs particle was discovered, it was the first particle to obey Klein Gordon statistics. The theory that proposes that particles are excitations of fields and ultimately forms the basis for Quantum Field Theory. This was first postulated almost a century ago by a number of physicists, including the famous physicist Hedeki Yukawa. He postulated that dirac fermions, which include charged particles, are due to a coupling between the Quantum Vacuum and the Dirac field known as Yukawa coupling. Since these predictions were paramount in leading to the prediction and ultimately the discovery of the Higgs Boson, it leads credence to the possibility that Yukawa coupling explains the characteristics of normal charged matter.
And Kaluza Klein theory was first postulated in an effort to explain the apparent weakness of gravity by postulating that the force of gravity is dissipating into extra, compactified dimensions. KK was an attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism, but then when the standard model was shown to effectively unify electromagnetism with the weak and strong nuclear forces, the theory was temporarily shelved. Despite still having utility in a number of future theories like the Klein Gordon equation. Adding an extra compactified spatial dimension appeared to vastly simplify our models, but its decline was largely due to the large electron problem and its inability to correctly predict the masses of particles. Which the accepted Standard Model also struggles with. That problem remains unsolved.
Complex mass on the other hand has been postulated as a working mechanism in black holes for a while now. The inner cauchy horizon and charged black holes has been a topic of debate for decades. What if its not just black holes that have complex mass, but charged particles and even the universe itself?
Another criticism of KK was why do we not see the effects of an extra dimension even if we can not probe it directly? But if Yukawa coupling is correct, then we do. Charge is a product of this extra compactified dimension. The whole reason why electromagnetic matter self interacts in the first place. And the dirac field could be our universe's imaginary mass field. Which could explain even more anomalies. Magnetic monopoles for example are shown to be mathematically real but we have never observed them. However as a particle with only charge and no mass, it would have imaginary mass and would slip into the compactified dimension through the force of gravity alone. Hence why we've never observed them. I'd also like to point out that not all theories on tachyons require faster than light particles.
It may also help to explain observed phenomenon like quantum tunnelling and quantum entanglement. If entangled objects were coherently interacting through 1 dimension, their interactions wouldn't be subject to the inverse square law and they would remain coherent regardless of distance. Also, real mass particles can still travel through this imaginary vector, they would just be pushed out with a force proportional to their mass. Which is what we see in quantum tunnelling. Less massive particles can tunnel greater distances, while more massive particles tend to have shorter tunnelling times. They do not appear to exceed the speed of light, but they are able to get around barriers that they should otherwise not be able to. These particles are just going around these barriers by travelling along a fourth vector that we haven't constructed a barrier for. As long as they have sufficient energy to do so. Like the mathematics of bouncing a basket ball and it accidentally bounces out of the court. We can build fences that account for two directions, left and right and forward and back, but they don't go infinitely up and down and can bounce over that barrier if they get enough energy.
Other papers have shown that imaginary mass can serve the function of negative mass in Alcubierre and Lentz warp metrics. As well as to form the throat of a wormhole. And if imaginary mass and this extra compactified vector is what gives particles their charge, then charge could be our avenue for generating imaginary mass/gravity artificially. Bringing us one step closer to realizing functioning wormholes and warp fields.
This observation of growing black hole masses could be the missing link we've been looking for in order to develop a working theory of quantum gravity and actually successfully predicting the masses of particles. There isn't one gravity, there's two! An attractive AND a repulsive one that occur symmetrically and simultaneously that may help to explain particle uncertainty and a number of other conundrums that have largely stunted particle physics since the days of Einstein.
Your last few lines make me think of magnetism. They are pushing imto the physical dimension whilst pulling out of Cartesian reality too. They are “spatially erasing” just making mind pictures.. loved your message above, real cut/paste and save stuff for me ❤
When a black hole meets a white hole,
They both stare and they both roll.
The black hole asks the white one,
"Why are you so bright and fun?"
The white hole grins and gives a wink,
"Because I'm full of stars, I think!"
The black hole scoffs and shakes his head,
"I'm the strongest force," he said.
The white hole giggles and replies,
"I'm the one that never dies!"
The black hole frowns and starts to pout,
"I'm the one that sucks things out!"
The white hole jumps and starts to play,
"I'm the one that makes things stay!"
The black hole grumbles and growls,
"I'm the one that devours whole worlds!"
And so the two just sit and bicker,
As they argue and they snicker.
But in the end they both agree,
That they're both part of one big galaxy.
Did you write that, it’s actually pretty good mate. Nice one!
@@aaronperelmuter8433 No it was written by a savant AI
Racist White Hole!!
Awesome video. I appreciate chapter 3 the most as it shows the issues that are not understood as of yet. This makes it a lot more credible rather than hype dished out by so many others. Thank you! 👍
Great video once again.. Your channel is truly the best when it comes to astronomy and videos related to space and our beautiful universe! I've a suggestion for you. Can you make a video on the new comet that has been discovered which is said to be shining the night sky in 2024? I'd be really happy if you could provide more information on it :)
Love the video!
As a hair stylist and colorist this makes sense to me -- black holes are dark so must be linked to dark energy
You certainly fit the demographic for this level of scientific discourse. 😅
@@xxxYYZxxx why u so idiots ?
Fascinating ✨
I don't see how a black hole is not understandable. It's a black -Star, that is nothing but gravity. It's not a pathway to some other place, unless one thinks of dying and still consciousness exists and one goes to some other place ( which it ain't). You stay right here in this universe. Why's it so hard to understand? A galaxy ain't a universe. A solar system ain't a galaxy. Things that are not black holes ( worm holes, gravitational waves, etc) , are not black holes. A hole for a golf ball doesn't go to China, or exit in a hollow moon. It's a hole for a golf ball. There's the same land at the bottom of it, that makes up it's walls, that it is set in. A tiny well. The black star is in the hole. See?
Finally someone who understands it.
Redshift, and matter have decayed over time from the acceleration of the universe so what this means is we still need to have telescopes powerful enough to detect for dark matter through gamma rays since the energy is what is expanding space to be able to travel at the speed of light. We’re viewing these black holes as they were in the past, so it’s completely possible there’s still dilation in our knowledge for understanding if these black holes are using gravitational pulls to be able to act as a Dyson sphere for say, for collecting virtual particles and dark energy as well. These black holes are repulsive, so it causes the universe to expand.
OK, I've watched several of these lately and I am not sure I understand. They say nothing can escape the event horizon, so how does energy come out of a black hole?
google Hawking Radiation.
Google.. wind.
Where does energy come from in a tornado?
Or go?
🤔
Love your channel. It keeps the kids interested. Thanks.
Energy doesn’t come out of a bh, well, except for Hawking radiation but that isn’t exactly coming out from inside a bh.
But in general, you are correct, that nothing can escape the eh, and perhaps that’s why Hawking radiation is actuallmpossible, because the photons emitted don’t actually come from ‘within’ the horizon. 😱
@@LuisManuelLealDias Yes, but that's just a "leakage" an insignificant amount that has no co-relatiopn to the 75% of the universe comprised of dark energy. But that's a good guess. It was my first assumption too but then it does not fit with the evidence.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 yes, you are correct and Hawking was just completely wrong... wait. No.
Vacuum energy is what my son lacks every Saturday when we clean the house.
Lmao
👍
Dark matter and dark energy is filler in the gaps of human knowledge.
Physics becomes fairytales when the hypotheses require inventing imaginary, conveniently impossible to measure features in order for it to make any sense whatsoever .... which it never did in the first place.
So black holes are the straws that blow to make universe bigger😂
Weather makes waves on the ocean in water. Gravity makes waves in space/time? Is space a fluidic substance in one of its properties? Does matter displace space, like Archimedes in his bathtub?
More like fluid properties are emergent of spacetime fundamentals
Extremely unlikely and no. Also, “fluidic” isn’t a word. The suffix “ic” can’t just be added onto arbitrary words, like “filmic”, which is supposed to mean that something has a film-like appearance. Just the word fluid would have been more than sufficient, as in, does it have any properties which makes it behave like, or appear to be, a fluid?
Anyway, the answer, TTBOMK, is no, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason it should behave as a fluid. Furthermore, if matter was able to somehow displace spacetime, to where would it possibly be displaced and from where does the energy to perform said displacement come from and end up? My thoughts are that to do so would require new physics, perhaps a new particle, maybe if the graviton ever turns out to be real, that might perhaps be one of its properties, but that’s pure speculation on my behalf.
If spacetime was displaced, how do you propose it to occur? What happens in the regions where spacetime is displaced to? There would now be places which have ended up with ‘extra’ space and ‘extra’ time from the displacement, so what effects does this have on spacetime and particles in this vicinity?
Finally, gravity can’t actually make waves in spacetime. Only matter can do that, TTBOMK. Gravity IS a wave in spacetime. As gravity is the degree to which spacetime is curved or distorted, therefore a gravity wave is just the same effect but on a much smaller timescale as gravity waves, like all waves, are transitory, whereas gravity itself could perhaps be thought of as a standing wave or a wave which somehow doesn’t oscillate nor move in a spatial direction. By that I mean that, for example, the earth’s gravitational field doesn’t go anywhere, it always surrounding the planet and extending as far as our instruments can measure. It’s said that both gravity and electromagnetic waves have infinite range but I’ve never completely understood what that means when thee isn’t supposed to be any gravity at vast distances from any gravitating bodies. If it’s range truly were infinite, how does one account for the fact that away from any massive bodies, in intergalactic space, or in voids, etc, why is no gravity or gravitational effects seen? EM is very easy to understand that it has infinite range as a photon will keep going until absorbed, if there’s nothing for it to interact with, it keeps going on its merry way. The same is supposed to be true of gravity, but I’m at a loss to explain how.
@@Nat-oj2ucWhat is a spacetime fundamental? 🧐 What exactly does that even mean? 🤔 How can it possibly have any “fundamentals”, it isn’t as if it can be broken down to its constituents, nor is there yet any evidence of it being quantum, so it therefore IS fundamental in and of itself. 😱
How could anything with fluid-like or any other kind of properties possibly emerge from spacetime? 😒 That’s illogical and completely makes no sense at all. From where and under what conditions does one observe or find these emergent fundamental properties? 😳 How does this process occur? Exactly what even are “spacetime fundamentals”, please describe them? The concept itself is implausible, please elaborate.
@@Nat-oj2uc That was my point. If space behaves like a liquid, in one aspect, that might be another property that can be directed, as they did with fluidic circuitry in the 1970's
@@costrioyes there are theories of superfluid spacetime. Also there are fluid analogues of black holes as well as sonic black holes.
I'm saying while you can describe some of the properties as fluid it's not a fluid per se. Fluid mechanics can explain part of it but not all of it.
Spacetime is a field. Fluid is within that field and due to nature of a fluid it shows some properties of that field.
As for your original question I can see the parallels but I prefer to think it's stretched rather than displaced because matter in a sense is part of a spacetime. Also interesting with fluid it's the volume of an object that affects displacement not mass/energy
I thought black holes contracts the universe, this is interesting.
Astronomers and politicians are starting to look alike more and more each day, making up answers just not to look ignorants
Can it be like there could be a Conservation law of "spacetime". Like as black holes are sucking up spacetime due to their high gravity, to balance it out the universe needs to produce more spacetime outside the galaxies.
Yes, something like that. The proposal is that black holes act as vacuum energy sponges.
Relative viewpoint: Instead of view it from Earth, try the viewpoint of a constant universe:
Galaxies and everything in it, even the rulers, will shrink (inverse of the expanding universe), black holes also stay constant but attract everything and bends space time.
And because black holes bends space time more with age, time is also affected...
Perfectly explained Amazing
Glad you liked it
"Black holes could be the source of dark energy!"
Yeah, okay. No... Just no...
Can y'all do a video on sun grazers? Quite fascinating! Like to know more information but can't find any so please do one on that I appreciate it!? Hope y'all have a wonderful and blessed day and stay safe out there!
Scientists when they can't explain something:
"Black hole - singularity - quantum mechanics -wormhole"
Dark matter
Multiverse
Dark matter [again]
It's like a Kingdom Hearts cutscene; you can say any words in any order:
Darkness, Darkness, Light Dark Heart Dark, Memories Light Dark, Friendship Darkness.
Me: Yes the rate of the passing of time away from the mass is also faster contributing to the illusion of traveling faster than C. Not only is distance expanded as the plasma moves away time is also passing by faster.
GPT: It's important to note that time dilation due to the presence of mass also affects the apparent speed of the plasma jet. As the plasma jet moves away from the massive object, the gravitational time dilation decreases, causing time to "speed up" relative to the observer near the massive object. This means that the apparent speed of the plasma jet is a combination of the jet's actual speed, the effects of distance expansion, and the effects of time dilation.
Me: Exactly!
GPT: Glad to hear we're on the same page. Do you have any other questions or topics you would like to discuss?
*Me:* Right except that the differences in measurements of time and distance are extreme between a supermassive black hole and outer space where there is no mass to contract distance or to slow down time.
*Chat GPT:* That is correct. In the presence of a massive object like a supermassive black hole, time can appear to slow down and distances can appear to be shorter due to the effects of gravity. This phenomenon is known as gravitational time dilation and gravitational lensing, respectively. However, in the vast empty spaces between galaxies where there is very little matter to cause these effects, time and distance measurements can be significantly different from those near a massive object. This can lead to the appearance of redshift, as the light from distant galaxies appears to be shifted towards longer wavelengths.
The universe came out of a Black hole.
If deficiency of star forming gases is due to the supermassive black hole accreting star forming gases, why doesn't it then accrete gas from older stars? And how does it accrete gas from the edges of the galaxy?
99.9% of everything you can see is Plasma and all stars sit inside the mystereous Galactic filaments as far as the radio telescopes can see. The Plasma universe theory say that the stars and galaxies are Plasma and that they sit inside the Plasma Filaments, because thats how they got made and also that the filaments are the likely source of dark energy
Thank for info
Dark matter/energy is the "rescaling" function inherent in a static-scale model of the universe. A static-scale universe is the simply the counterfactual (logical inversion) of an expanding universe with static-scaled content. Rescaling is an intrinsic property of any transformation, deemed "requantizaation" in the cosmological context. Quoting from the CTMU...
"...whereas it is ordinarily assumed that the sizes of material objects remain fixed while that of the whole universe ... changes around them, conspansion holds the size of the universe changeless and ... changes the sizes of objects. Because the universe now plays the role of invariant, there exists a global standard rate of inner expansion ... among the contents of the universe ...,"
IOW, instead of light/EM energy radiating at "C" from each and every object, each object can be alternately modeled as "virtually contracting" within its own static, ambient image at said rate "C".
"...and due to syntactic covariance, objects must be resized or “requantized” with each new event according to a constant (time-independent) rescaling factor residing in global syntax." CTMU
IOW, objects aren't literally "contracting" in the sense whereby they denser or farther apart, rather each "virtual contraction" over any given time period (down to quantum-scale transitions), is likewise a rescaling, thereby offering a descriptive explanation of "time frame dilation", "dark matter/energy", and "functional genome selection" as the outcomes of this generic "rescaling function", aka "requantization".
"Requantization downsizes the content of Planck’s constant by applying a quantized scaling factor to successive layers of space corresponding to levels of distributed parallel computation. This inverse scaling factor 1/R is just the reciprocal of the cosmological scaling factor R, the ratio of the current apparent size dn(U) of the expanding universe to its original (Higgs condensation) size d0(U)=1." C.M.Langan, "Physics & Metaphysics" ruclips.net/video/feZzjAmaR7w/видео.html
The same "scaling factor" logic applies to any portion of a galaxy's radius, thereby explaining faster-than-expected rotation. Additionally, each galaxy can be independently modeled per it own "scaling factor", which among other implications renders "dark galaxies" apparently more-massive than expected when relying on a distributed model of galaxies.
Continuing with Langan's CTMU quote...
"Second, because the rate of shrinkage is a constant function of a changing size ratio, the universe appears from an internal vantage to be accelerating in its “expansion”, leading to the conspansive dual of a positive cosmological constant." CTMU
IOW, we already have a straightforward explanation of the "cosmological constant" (WHICH CAN'T BE REFUTED!!!!), Einstein's self-admitted "biggest blunder". Einstein & Co. never realized Conspansion, and the actors, executives, and politicians have formally taken over science using Quantum Electrodynamic hypno-woo ever since (We OWN the science: ruclips.net/video/-rnhB29xCz4/видео.html ).
I must say that your naming convention are confusing. By younger galaxies, one would think they mean (relatively) recently formed galaxies while they mean galaxies formed when the universe was young.
Excellent, thank you!!
BUT HOW. Do these BHs grow because of dark energy accreting on them, or vice versa? If it's the latter, how does their density "spill out" to create new energy? Via some quantum entanglement shenanigans? I just can't see how attracting BHs may create negative pressure, other than Hawking radiation, but it's intensity reverse-proportional to their masses which contradicts this hypothesis. I'm totally lost.
I'll be dead by then, why do i find this interesting...
You're confusing Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Dark Matter may be from Black Holes. Dark Energy is believed to be due to virtual partial formation in inter galactic space, Galaxies are not expanding. However, the distance between them is.
Really? So, even though it has been conclusively determined that bh’s have nowhere near enough mass to account for the rotational speed of galaxies and clusters, you’re claiming it’s still might be possible? How? By what physical process could this happen?
I feel like black holes are part of the reason the universe exists 😶
That’s just ridiculous! How could a bh possibly, in any way whatsoever be even a minuscule, infinitesimally tiny “part of the reason he universe exists”?? So are you implying that bh’s must have been here prior to the big bang or whatever started the universe? Again, that just sounds like nonsense. What makes you “feel like” this? What would lead one to conclude such a seemingly nonsensical and illogical conclusion, what could possibly have encouraged you to think in such a manner?
@@aaronperelmuter8433 you say this as if you fully understand the origin of the universe as if we don't know so little already. There is so much we don't know and acting like we have at least a good idea is rediculous. He could definitely be on to something based on many theories we have regarding our universe. If you want me to break this down for you based on the explanations of scientific theories go do the research yourself. Im not saying they are right but saying it makes no sense when you barely can comprehend our universe. THAT is what I would also call to be rediculous.
@Aaron Perelmuter What an arrogant response. Calm down
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Careful I think you dropped your fedora
@@davidwalz94 Perhaps, but I’ve no idea what a fedora is?
Got to love the cockiness of the title - "68% of the Universe was missing .. and we found it". No, the Universe was exactly where it always was and nature will do what it has to do. What is missing is our understanding of how the Universe works. I can bet in a few years the scientists will find something else and come up with a new theory and there will be another video with the same cocky title ... no different from Columbus "discovering" America
What's the music of the video? It's so nice
That was cool!
It seems like the material being taken Into the black holes is related to the expansion or powering it in some way. Like they are structural components of the universe.
Everything is interconnected.
No it just means gravity causes redshift, it is literally that simple.
Inside a black hole. A super heavy particle surrounded by a magnetic field. ?
68% of the Universe is NOT Dark Energy. There is no such thing as Dark Matter OR Dark Energy The reason it's 68% and 27% is that Astronomy cannot identify the missing amount needed for galactic spin behaviour among other things. I love how this is always presented as fact without the caveat "because Physicists still don't understand how Gravity work OR take into account the mass of ancient black holes from Type III stars..among other sources.
Explain why stars in a same galaxy all have similar speeds.
Explain why the visible space distorsions (gravitational lenses) are so big than the mass that is inside is much more than what is visible.
_Then_ you can claim that dark matter doesn't exist.
Explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating, or prove that this is wrong.
_Then_ you can claim that dark energy doesn't exist.
That's how Science works. You want to talk science, you've gotta bring solid arguments.
@@Dante02d12 Oh I agree. The problem is that science has initiated Myth vs Science. If you have an untestable hypothesis..ie String theory or Dark Matter/Energy, you have Philosophy and Myth..
As for your questions. That's just confusing the issue. I can't answer..Why don't you then? Simply because someone can't answer these questions doesn't invalidate their position, their questions or skepticism. Don't come at me with elementary school debating tactics :)
The point is that neither can they without inventing things that don't exist..or at least not proveably. They don't have solid arguments either.. they have Myth, Legend and make believe BS that is forever untestable.
I am NOT anti science. I am just anti BS. And you must be REALLY bored to have been poring through all the comments only to arrive at mine and decide THIS is the person I will troll today to make myself feel good.
Have a good one man. And anyway, all this is angels on the head of a pin since were forever stuck on this rock in the middle of this universe and will never go anywhere or do anything in the Galaxy.
@@hanovergreen4091 "Troll", lmao.
I just explained to you that we didn't make up dark matter and dark energy.
We *noticed* the observations I mentionned, and we *named* the only plausible origins of these phenomenons dark matter and dark energy. We didn't make up anything.
I merely explained to you how Science works. But clearly you're not interested. You just _decide_ what is wrong and what is right apparently.
As for my """elementary debate skills" : you're the one who doesn't bring anything to solidify your case.
@@Dante02d12 You just proved you are a sad troll by responding. Go away little Troll.
Excellent work! I love this channel's videos very much, everything is straightforward, with Maths and formulas explained simply, yet easily understood by most anyone [even if they forgot high school algebra!] The graphics are superb, and as always, I love our narrator, very easy to follow, expressing curiosity, wonder, confusion, concern, and amusement at the perfect times.
Love it, and it is a fascinating idea, tho I am skeptical based on this being based on assumptions yet to be proven anywhere but on paper. "Beautiful Maths" is indeed beautiful, but is not proof, Maths is only part of fact and reality; it does not create or sustain reality, it is meant to support Reality. Very beautiful indeed, but still, make this idea and formula work with average and supermassive Black Holes, and then I'll let myself get excited.
Yes, evidently self consistent mathematical models can describe universes very unlike ours.
Badevi .... your check's in the post 😂
Nobody explains these difficult concepts more clearly than this channel. Well done. Now I am wondering: How can you have a black hole without a singularity? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
As far as I understand singularities are just mathematical stuff coming from GE, this is the best model we have yet since quantum physics cannot handle gravity atm. But we can already be pretty sure it is not correct in it's current form since it violates principles and generates infinite gravity in an infinitely small space where everything falls apart. So currently it seems contradictory according to our model, but the model itself is already suspicious and we shouldn't stick to it no matter what.
Not sure if it’s a contradiction in terms exactly, but a bh more than likely has no singularity anyway. It HAS to have something incredibly small and massive in its centre, but most physicists in this day and age don’t actually believe there is a point inside every bh where all of its mass is concentrated into something with infinite density. Not to mention, Einstein’s theory actually breaks down and no longer works or can provide sensible and useable solutions at the singularity.
So, I think we can have a bh without a singularity but for sure there has to be something else there, in its place but what that could be, I don’t have the faintest idea.
The key is to understand what a singularity is, and how it can be formed (or existing). The Schwarzschild singularity, once formed, it inherently leads to our currwnt universe with all the contradictions blown up. Only lacks one key (see Bache, MAB, 2023; actually is a work started in 2015; ended and registered in 2020. Not accepted for publication the reviewers took the ideas as their own, especially which overcame Einstein's 2nd postulate). The bh copies is from a recent work of t'Hooft (in any case a Schwarzschild singularity with the dynamics and characteristics featured in Bache, MAB 2023; 2022 and 2020 if we considered the registered works, ; it is completely plausible and compatible with and to the bh central singularities copies, t'Hooft model; that model hereby presented, aka "a new model" according to the channel owner, is my model)•(
Both Aaron, a central singularity (Schwarzschild) as a central persistent point to create general dynamics (gravity) and black holes (new little singularities, t'Hooft, 2021) for the expansion and conservation of the structure as it expands (quantum)
That's only part of my model, I sent it to Universe one year before 't Hooft work came up. And the 2022 Nobel hint (for the Schwarzschild singularity explanation idk if you understand) it is the original idea I based ToE on in 2015 (part is the negative vacuum hereby the creator presents as by "researchers";)• I'm claiming this video, hope it finds you well, and the messages reached you before it was striken.
@@Manuel_Bache Wow! Where can I find out more about your work? Obviously I’ll google your name, but I’m very interested to learn more about your work. Any links or suggestions you can provide will be most greatly appreciated.
Great episode; now what should follow is the study of pulsars and quasars- their contributions to space expansion!
Why? What’s the point? A quasar is nothing more than an (extremely) active, feeding smbh. And a pulsar has zero effect on the expansion of the universe. Well, that’s the same for bh’s also, vid’s like this are just nonsense anyway. There is absolutely zero evidence for what’s been said in this and other similar vids. All they’re saying is that there might, perhaps be some connection between bh’s and the universe at large. But pulsars? What connection could there possibly be? They just an incredibly compressed ball of matter, why would you think there’d be any way in which such an object could affect expansion?
@@aaronperelmuter8433 damm!
Dark matter and dark energy are just maths with no basis in reality.
The most surprising thing about it is how obvious it is.
You, like most, misunderstand. The proposal is that supermassive black holes contain and absorb vacuum energy. The don't actually create it!
Thank you , Thank You Uber3!! 😇 🙏
So dark energy is an "entity". Part of the definition of entity is: "The existence of something considered apart from its properties." OK. So my question: what, apart from its properties, is energy?
So no law of preservation of mass?
Energy and mass are just created in black holes?
(This video says that the new model suggests that the energy of black holes just increases, so their mass does too)
Black holes do stretch space from the 'event horizon' to the 'singularity'. But does some of that stretched space, or new space, leak out into our universe?
(Dark Energy expands space.)
Better yet, can it solidify like an ice cube?
Gravity stretch's space not expansion
I fail to understand the emphasis placed on "dark matter" and "dark energy". Best of my knowledge neither of these theories has progressed seriously in the last decade and there are several competing theories, seemingly ignored because some have just plainly excepted it at this point. Am I entirely wrong here? Misinformed? I see no practical value in the study.
I think it's because dark energy has been tied to black holes. Even if we still haven't progressed much in our understanding of what dark energy, it's mentioned because it's been found to be related to black holes
Some of these theories sound more like magic
Great
"......You know who I am, you've stared at the SUN 🌞, well I am the one who loves changing from NOTHING to ONE.--- Leonard Cohen ❣️🕊️
It's not a black hole, it's something transparent. Space glass?
Sorry, but sounds to me like a huge amount of speculation with very little cited evidence behind the claims.
Don’t apologise for being correct, you’ve no reason to do so!
Nice 11:11 video length.
The two galaxy did ir.....this galaxy living is getting huge!...
Perhaps a singularity is only perceived by the human or matter who is very physically limited. It is where matter unwinds, but the energy flowing in and around is likely more toroidal and does not feature a singularity to anything but matter. Everything else flows like a river?
I’m not a scientist so I’m sure this idea is full of holes. Pun intended
Could dark energy be hawking radiation as that is why black holes loose mass and evaporate could that not be the missing energy and matter in the universe as we do not understand hawking radiation
What if we are missing something for example a hawking radiation like effect from the B.H but leaking matter instead of energy via radiation. What if B.H's excrete a portion of matter when not feeding via a random event as it would most likely be a random cause not a specific repeating pattern.
For that to happen, I think you’d need to invent some new physics to allow it to occur. By what process could a bh excrete matter, and if it were only to occur when a bh isn’t feeding, how is that random? How would a physical process have any knowledge of when a bh is feeding and how does it determine the cutoff between active, feeding states and a resting state?
that number for k is awfully close to pi - I wonder if there is a relation? That would be crazy
I’m confused if the negative pressure is pushing stuff away why are black holes eating everything that get to close when it’s eating
.1% of the mass of the universe being the source of 68% of its mass. Sure.
No one knows what’s inside a black hole quite yet because the inside has not been exactly explored yet. So all we have of black holes are theories.
Yep
The fact that the we don't know what's there doesn't mean that we don't know what's for sure not there.
And it’s unlikely to change
That’s a tautological statement. From the definition of a black hole you can never send anything out, so anyone “exploring” the inside remains causally disconnected from the rest of the universe.
Theory is not all we have though thanks to facilities like the LIGOs, and projects like the Event Horizon Telescope array. These methods don’t really tell you what the interior is like, but saying all we have on black holes are theories is a bit of an overstatement. We’ve literally observed them, and it’s a step in the right direction considering they were only theorized 100 years prior.
@@nablaphysics -- Love the username!! Your note is right on the money, though it'll probably go over the heads of many people.
What in the world is negative pressure...
Wow unbelievable ❤
WTF just not call Dark Matter/Dark Energy... SPACE?
Intuitively it makes sense. If you think about density and it's relationship to mass and volume. The black hole density remains constant, however, the space is expanded within just like all of space-time is being expanded. If the density remains the same, but the volume changes, then something has to be happening to the mass. There is another interesting aspect of black holes predicted by Hawking, and verified by LIGO measurements of black hole mergers. That is the surface area of the black hole (as described by the Schwarzschild radius) is proportional to the mass of the black hole. When two black holes merge, the resulting surface area is larger than the individual two combined. It hints at a very deep relationship with space, time, and the structure of our universe.
I think somebody is confused in regards to mergers. Merging two bubbles will create a bigger bubble, but the surface area will be less than the sum of the two original bubbles. For surface area to increase, density would have to decrease. Considering that the two cores are near absolute zero and under extreme pressure, this means the cores are heated up during the merger, resulting in a less dense singularity.
No, it is merely simple geometry, since surface area is proportional to radius squared. It is therefore also proportional to mass squared.
@@stewiesaidthat Density does indeed go down with black hole size, since volume increases with mass cubed.
Maybe black holes crunch incoming radiation energy into mass.
Try to understand "Atomic Gravity" and you will understand the new Cosmological model.
But we know for a fact that empty space has an energy associated with it.
So the expansion of the universe constantly creates additional energy?! Seems very unlikely....
unlikely or not chillydogg is correct, it is a fact.
@@somewhere-else
Nothing is a fact, there are just postulations that have not yet been disproved.
Sure, there is a claim that virtual particles can 'pop in and out of existence' within Plank time, but that a long long way form 'empty space has energy is a fact'.
Virtual particles have virtual mass and therefore, according to Einstein, virtual energy.
And possibly therefore a virtual fact?
@@peterthomas5792 vacuum energy exists whether or not virtual particles are the mechanism. heisenberg demands it.
@@somewhere-else IIRC, Heisenberg demands that position & speed cannot be simultaneously known. He was uncertain about anything else :-)
We have very little knowledge of black holes. Most everything about their existence and characteristics is conjecture with "mathematical" evidence.
I hope I'm alive when they figure what in the center of a black hole. Thank you for the great video.
Quark gluon plasma
pretty soon all the theories that support the big bang need to be hid there away from the nasty steady state theorists
Don't worry we won't be.
When we have nothing left to look for, inevitably, we must explore the impossible
More like .... when we can't find what we theorise we'll have to invent something impossible to detect to 'explain' what's not there.
Can someone be generous enough to educate me on the following...
From earth if we can see the early universe (galaxies formed after the milky way formed), then if we looked in the opposite direction would we see galaxies that formed before our miky way formed???
Random fact: The Pringles man's name is Julius.
Have a nice day.
And what of Hawking radiation and the evaporation of black holes?
Is the accretion disk of a black hole a 3D phenomenon? We are shown them as being 2D and I understand this is so we can see the black hole...
It's 2D. Just like Saturn's disks or the alignment of planets' orbits around the Sun, or the galaxies's flatness, this is due to the center objects' rotation. That's why it's called a disk ^^'.
@@Dante02d12 Just looked at a diagram of this. Kinda wild and also makes sense in that there is uniformity in our galaxy large and small.
All these postulates could equally describe the banking system. . .
Cause or correlation? That is the question.
There was nothing, then there was emptiness, from emptiness- mind. From mind.. everything
It's a proposal about which many astrophysicists have already expressed serious reservations.
If that was true, wouldn't the black holes push away all the stars in it's own galaxy?
Negative pressure - meaning the black hole shrinks
@@franimal86 Negative pressure? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Regardless, why would the bh shrink, if negative pressure even exists, wouldn’t it cause things to EXPAND, as in, doing the opposite of what pressure does?
That is Dark Energy THEORY and Dark Matter THEORY, to you Mister....
Look, if you aren't the master of the bright idea in cosmological physics, you ain't no where. And since we don't know what black holes are, it's only reasonable to blame them for everything. #churchoftheblackhole
dark energy and dark matter are just descriptions of phenomena. There is no particle or field which has been detected which can be described as either.
Things popping in and out of existence? You have my ear, tell me more about this "non-existence" environment "IF YOU CAN" please ( I gotta hear this nonsense)!
There's No Dark Matter. There's No Dark Energy either.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime.
However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method.
An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime.
So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass?
The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time.
The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”.
“Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter.
Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows.
As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as:
Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc
The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 + 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
👁️👁️
there is no dark energy OR dark matter? wow you should contact every single scientific institution with these findings, that would get you the nobel prize for 10 years straight!
@@lunahri4173 They already know. That is, real science (not RUclips science) has known that the standard model is getting more and more unlikely. Humans do not like uncertainty (it is in our DNA) so we need to come up with something. I am rooting for the 3 dimensions of time theory with can explain the red shift (not doppler).
🧢
Everyone knows that scientists cannot define dark matter with any certainty, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist like you so confidently say... It is a speculation. You linking 1 article literally doesn't prove anything at all. Why are you even watching "youtube science" videos if you don't believe in any of it, smartass?
> There's No Dark Matter. There's No Dark Energy either.
That's obviously true.
They're called 'dark' not because we can't see them, but because we haven't got any explanation for 'what they are'.
And if we have no explanation for what they are, we have no right to claim that they exist - we might just as well say that our current understanding of gravity appears to be incomplete.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are merely postulations to explain the inconsistencies between observations and our currently-accepted theories.
I expect that in time, better theories will emerge which won't rely on the existence of either.
why is this coupling constant so close to pi
I have always suspected that black holes were somehow related to dark energy. This theory has the ring of truth for me. Nature may abhor singularities and this is how she deals with it.
All is pressure
Mediation
Confirmation bias
@@OMGitsjustperfect maybe
@@OMGitsjustperfect no,allen everhart must be a god of infinite knowledge, it is the only explanation
"Nature may Abhor singularities" sounds true but starts in singularity and ends in singularity. Singularity looks like it's original State. It constantly strives reach back to that state of Nothingness. But what forced it to go into a chaotic state which required laws of physics to govern it from being thrown into oblivion. We see pockets of singularity as black holes spread across the universe .
>~ ♡ ~<
There's two origins I think
Lefthanded part + Righthanded part makes the whole. Pauli's two valueness is left handed helical wave and righthanded helical wave. The atom is the mechanism of creation and perception..
What?
@@Ryan-gx4ce I said what I said. Not repeatedly for your entertainment.
@@danmiller4725 it's an incoherent comment, no clue what you're talking about
@@Ryan-gx4ce Of course not. You don't have the background. Probably never heard of Pauli's "two valueness". And don't know the difference between a right and left handed helix. Ask your celebrity scientist to explain the Standard Models "Lorentz boost" and what it's for. They won't.
But Pauli's "two valueness" isn't two essentially different values. It's right hand spin up and right hand spin down. It's the same spin turned upside down. You need spin right and spin left. It's helical not orbital. The two values are chiral and thus nonsuperimposible..
3.11 missing a .22? 3.3r infinity...
Black holes are vastly overrated objects, they are just a tiny part of the universe and surely dont make out the majority of it's total mass. Dark energy is what's causing the expansion of the universe, it was there long before the black holes, allowing them to be formed in the first place. This theory seems just absurd to me.
I didn't mean to be insulting. To me it just seems, the black star, in and of itself, ignoring anything and everything, that is due of it's creating and existence. Just doesn't seem to be beyond understanding.
Bro a doubt cosmological coupling proves Hawking theory wrong
K = 3 ? Why?