Probably the best series on youtube right now. The fact that we can ask a noted physicist any question we want for free doesn't get nealy enough appreciation.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

3 жыл бұрын

PBS Space Time, Sean Carrol, just two people here on YT who also give their views on astronomical and scientific subjects.

@seionne85

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I don't like being this guy.. But he was talking about this being a series with a q&a

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

3 жыл бұрын

@@seionne85 Both I mentioned have had many Q&A sessions after the lecture. And they go way deeper into the subject too. Sean Carrol even made seperate videos after his episodes with 30 minutes of Q&A.

@seionne85

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 i watch both those channels and neither has this format

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

3 жыл бұрын

@@seionne85 Space Time dedicates at least the last one-third of a video for Q&A of the previous episode, Sean Carrol did a 26 part series about different subjects, each with it's own accompanying Q&A video. Look them up on his channel. Extremely captivating, at least most of them were for me. The format may be different, but Q&A is Q&A.

"High energy means small sizes" This is best demonstrated after Thanksgiving dinner, where your mass has increased but your energy is near zero

@danuttall

3 жыл бұрын

That is more of a corollary. Large sizes means low energy.

@henrikgiese6316

3 жыл бұрын

Seems people may have some problem with understanding jokes... ;-) How about saying "your personal energy potential is near zero"? :-D

@paineoftheworld

3 жыл бұрын

Is it though? Your potential energy has to skyrocket to maintain Gravy-symmetry.

@DurinSBane-zh9hj

3 жыл бұрын

​@@paineoftheworld and don't even get started on so called "dark stuffing"

@clydeblair9622

2 жыл бұрын

Hysterical.

Someday show us your t-shirt collection. It is always the first thing I look for.

@mr.potato9449

3 жыл бұрын

Plot twist, he only has 1 shirt but it reverts to a quantum superposition after every video and the next time it gets observed gives a different result than before.

@grahamrankin4725

3 жыл бұрын

Each shirt exists only in another universe and he just jumps between universes

@rollinwithunclepete824

3 жыл бұрын

@@grahamrankin4725 so then we have evidence of the.... multi-t-shirt?

@SquirrelASMR

3 жыл бұрын

I swear he must print them specifically for each episode 😂

@JasonJason210

3 жыл бұрын

The second thing I look at is if the books have been rearranged.

Thanks for the lesson Dr. Don ❤

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

@Captain1nsaneo

3 жыл бұрын

If the hole is in a cup, the puddle is correct.

@Simbosan

3 жыл бұрын

@@Captain1nsaneo The universe is God's cup of tea? But seriously, physicists who object to religious 'grand design' and then proceed to make the same simple philosophical mistake are just inventing a new 'grand design' and a new religion. Just because you can frame a question, doesn't mean it's worth answering

@DragonFanngg

3 жыл бұрын

@@Simbosan This analogy is to explain the adaption of human in accordance to the environment of earth, it tells nothing about the "finely tuned" universal constants. For all we know, these have remained constant since the beginning of the universe and have not adapted to allow life. As Dr Don pointed out, a slight variation in these constants would break the physics of this universe, add we know it, to either result in the universe collapsing within itself, or expanding at such an incredible rate that it wouldn't have allowed any stars, galaxies, or planets to form.

@MrHominid2U

3 жыл бұрын

@@Simbosan "it's turtles all the way down"

The Mr. Multiverse shirt gave me a chuckle. 😄

These episodes are so wonderful to watch.

Dr. Don, during the Q&A section of your videos, would you pick one book from the shelf behind you and give us a 30 second review? Great videos, keep up the great work!!

I would very much wish for you to continue this format after the covid situation. 🙂 Of course I still look forward to more normal editions also. 👍

How refreshing that a scientist can humbly and honestly discuss intelligent design without bias or prejudice. He presents the theory, shows how it would fit/solve the observed data, but then provides the caveat that it's inherently unverifiable with science and so the truly "scientific" thing is not to dismiss it, ridicule it, or reject it, but simply to move on and focus on applying the science where we can. Science is an incredible and powerful tool but is impotent and useless in the face of moral, philosophical, or religious questions. It's like praising the success of you axe, which truthfully has helped you to achieve a great deal, to the point where you insist on using it to drink water with. It's just an entirely different form of thinking/reasoning.

Thanks Doctor Lincoln, informative funny and a cool t shirt. What more can one ask for? Keep up the good work.

It's going pretty good, thanks for asking!

Hi, thanks for your great channel. I was under the impression that the idea of a multiverse was first proposed by Eugene Wigner as a possible interpretation of the wave function collapsing and the measurement problem in QM.

Another great tutorial! Keep up the good work!

Thanks for another great video Brian.

Currently watching these backwards, so to speak. Fantastic series. I love speculative science because it frees the mind to imagine pretty much any situation. For a sci-fi writer, if only for a small group, this is fantastic 'fodder'. Having said that, I only write it if I think I can use any scenario within acceptable parameters. I really appreciate your clear explanations, as much as any speculation can be clear!

Hi Don, great video as always. You often say that physics is everything. Do you think that one day we will be able to explain the origins of consciousness and subjective experiences using particle physics?

@jamesepperson5940

Жыл бұрын

Yes physics is everything. Consciousness isn’t some strange phenomenon that only exists in a strange realm outside physics. We might never be able to explain it fully but that doesn’t mean it’s no based in ground physics principles. It’s also possible that we need to adjust our physics to explain it but everything can be explained by physics

Very good and informative, look forward to more videos..

I am SO sold on the Anthropic Principle... if things weren't the way they are, we wouldn't be here to ask why they are the way they are.

@v.sandrone4268

3 жыл бұрын

Or you live in a simulation....

@laurendoe168

3 жыл бұрын

@Howard Pym It doesn't answer all questions, of course. And I admit it can't even answer the most fundamental question: Why is there anything at all? But, there's no denying things exist unless you believe we're a hologram....which is one hypothesis. In fact, that one makes the most sense - as you said, something can't come from nothing.... so obviously nothing exists, right? We're nothing but ethereal consciousnesses and everything is just a product of our imagination.

@henrikgiese6316

3 жыл бұрын

@Howard Pym Actually, we DON'T know if something can come from nothing. It appears to be the case in the space-time we inhabit, but we have no idea if space-time itself needs to come from something.

@henrikgiese6316

3 жыл бұрын

@Howard Pym Nope, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that the rules that apply to everyday life applies to more extreme situations. AFAIK the total energy budget of the universe is pretty close to zero due to gravity acting as negative energy. If it is in fact exactly zero the universe is, viewed from the "outside", nothing. In this case the universe has no problem starting to exist from nothing at all with just the assumption that quantum mechanics exist (QM says "nothing" is an unstable state). Infinite existence is also fine. In fact the only choice you have is infinite of nothing - either the universe is infinite, or there is nothing outside the universe (or you have an infinite number of universes).

@henrikgiese6316

3 жыл бұрын

@Howard Pym Nope, the quantum foam is a phenomena *in* our universe (caused by the non-zero energy density of vacuum). What quantum mechanics says is that you can't have all parameters stay the same forever (for any time at all, in fact). Since "nothing" is defined as "everything is zero" and quantum mechanics says "things won't stay zero", "nothing" ends up being unstable. BUT, and I stress this, we're only talking about an unevidenced hypothesis here. It follows from what we can observe in our universe, but as with all other hypothesis that examine the origin of the Big Bang it's real hard to know if it's correct.

I noticed you have a copy of Parker's "The Roman Legions" on your shelf. It's one of my favorites! In Hawking et. al.'s paper "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation," Hawking mentions that the early inflationary period might have been part of a cluster of similar expansions of several other universes, and that we could detect evidence of this in the CMB. If so, what sort of evidence would we look for? Something like the Cold Spot, or another feature that's more subtle?

Thanks again, very nice video as always

Love this series, and love this episode on the multiverse. I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Is that a deliberate omission, because they're very different ideas? Are there ways that MW and the multiverse are related to one another?

@jamesepperson5940

Жыл бұрын

I think it’s possible for MW to also be imbedded in multiverse theory. It would only make sense to me

I never took a physics class so most of your videos are over my head, but the curiosity is still there. Are there any web sites your might recommend to get a more basic understanding of physics, more specifically, particle physics?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Look up Leonard Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum"

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

Any of Feynman’s lectures are great as is his six easy pieces book

Brilliant explanation.

If there TRULY was symmetry in the universe, there'd be a Don Fermi doing KZread videos for Lincoln Labs!

Hey, a new one... and a cool topic too!

Hi Don, thanks for the video! If travelling time was not a problem - which place in the universe you'd want to visit? Or which event to observe?

Hi Don, String and superstring theory are very interesting ideas you have mentioned. What are the strings made of though? Spacetime, energy, math? Is there an allegory of string theory using mathematical knots and braids to model the particle zoo?

@cyberpersona6267

3 жыл бұрын

@Hilmar Zonneveld Good point. Strings would be simple and knots and braids maybe the interactions between them. Or results of interaction. What makes something fundamental then? How do you know when you hit bottom?

Thanks for your detailed explanation of where we’ve been and where we’re headed...all on a time scale which is beyond us mere mortals!

Wait, what about branes? And what do you think about the Arecibo news? Thanks for doing this series.

Dr.Don what is your stance on QM and its interpretations?

Where does gravity fit on the 'Increasing Strength' v Log(Energy) graph?

The word universe meaning "everything" is kind of analogous to how "atom" originally meant "uncuttable". As our understanding becomes more subtle, sometimes words take on new meanings that are in conflict with the old meanings.

I think the multiverse is probably real. I can't say for sure of course but the fact that particles behave like a wave and the fact that our universe was once smaller than a particle, it should be that the universe is smeared so to speak and exist in multiple locations simultaneously.

@MK-tx9fc

3 жыл бұрын

Funny, you made the same comment in Universe 23956673294587408

@Mosern1977

3 жыл бұрын

Well, everything seems to be circles and spheres and waves... So any theory giving the universe some sort of sphere-wavey-circle shape would be interesting in my book.

Is something like the space between electron orbits and the nucleus of an atom also dark energy?

Dr. Lincoln, two questions (sorry about that). In mentioning 'a fine tuning' or perhaps I should say a fine tuned universe among a multitude of universes (to stay off 'intelligent design') that is fined tuned enough for us to exist. Assuming our universe is fine tuned throughout wouldn't that rather imply that life should exist elsewhere in our universe too? You did say that you didn't believe in MU hypothesis does that include the idea of a 'parallel universe' too?

Question: if I understood it correctly the multiverse has been proposed to explain why our universe has certain settings (fine tuning), by hypothesizing that there’s a lot of universes all with different “settings” and we found ourselves in one of them. My problem is: based on what principle the other universes are different? In our universe we postulate that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, why should they be different in the other universes? If I have a bubble bath that produces bubbles, they may differ in size but for the rest they are the same.

Totally agree with Dr. Don about the supposed multiverse. I recently watched a video whereby two Astrophysicists were discussing a galaxy that apparently was devoid of dark matter. So, how is that possible when the existence of dark matter is still just a theory? Any thoughts on that? Thanks....

Question: What would the impact be on our current model of physics be if dark matter/energy violate parity symmetry as recent research from Minami-san & Komatsu-san, regarding β not being zero due to a polarisation in the CMB, might suggest? (only "suggest" as not yet considered "evidence", apparently)

Hi Dr, hoping to find my question in the next section. Can you explain in an easy way, maybe with some maths, how scientists have deduced black holes or the expansion of the universe from GR?

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

@Boodysaspie A British astronomer, John Michell suggested the existence of black holes first in the late seventeenth century, seeing them as a consequence of Newton’s gravity. He did not of course call them black holes, and the idea was based on Newton’s corpuscular theory of light. The assumption of a particulate nature for light came with a corollary assumption of mass. So maybe not the modern theory, but the core idea, gravitation too strong for light to escape.

I always had a problem with fine tuning, there is implied in there that the constant of the universe could be any other way. I mean, we don't have a second universe to test against ours, and check if the constants are the same, so even implying that changes in the constant would bring an another non-life permitting universe seems unscientific to me.

Do quantum fields continue outside universe, such as before big bang and beyond particle horizon of universe?

Hi Don! Could you elaborate on why some physicists think that the existence of more universes makes the existence of ours with "life-supporting" fine tuning more plausible? Are those other universes necessarily expected to produce constants "all over the place" and so to get it just right once in a while? I am thinking about throwing dice here, expecting a "6-6" scenario. But underlying is the asssumption that that scenario can and will be achieved.

@lorenzmueller2355

3 жыл бұрын

@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks for your answer, appreciate it :) I don't see, however, how the evocation of such a principle (the generating of a range of constants) is really reducing non-understood complexity. Now you have a mechanism at your hands whose workings are in itself to be explained. While we can observe other planets and understand the external factors that may or may not lead to life on a particular planet, the multiverse idea strikes me as somewhat similar to the first-cause-argument for the existence of god - The un-explainable complexity of the system is atrributed to a larger system behind it.

I like getting more technical so to put more technical Q&A at the end seems a fair deal to not loose the majority at the beginning of the videos.

Hello Dr. Don, you explained the our universe might just be the "one" of countless that happens to be finely tuned to support life, but is this the strong or weak anthropic principal? and what is the difference between the two?

Besides intelligent design or the multiverse, what other explanations can explain the fine tuning of the universe?

Hi Don, does Godel's incompleteness theorem suggest to you that the universe is computational (e.g. Wolfram cellular automata) or that human beings can think in ways that computers cannot (e.g. Penrose microtubules)?

Do you consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to be a multiverse theory and if so what are your thoughts. A whole video discussing the decoherance phenomenon would be awesome

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

My understanding, for what it's worth, is that the multiverse and many worlds are entirely separate. Presumably each universe in the multiverse could have many worlds.

Do gravitational waves propagate with the constant c speed no matter the medium, or do they behave as electromagnetic waves exhibiting different speeds in different media? If the 2nd case is what describes the reality, is it a gravitational shock wave possible to happen and how would it affect the matter nearby?

What are your views about Strange matter in cores of neutron stars?

Question: Could the "many worlds" theory solve the fine tunung problen or do these paramateres have to be fixed before we can us the "many worlds" theory?

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

The multiverse and many worlds have some overlap, although it is possible to imagine examples of either of them with zero overlap too. Ideas are easy. Correct ideas are not.

Very cool. One thing about "fine-tuning". There is a paper Adams, F. Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008, (2008). that shows that the space for three constants is relatively large for stars (as we know them) to form. So, it may be likely that fine-tuning isn't quite as fine as some thing. The other point is that humans exist because our universe is the way it is. The universe isn't the way it is because we were destined to exist. This is simple evolution. Life evolves to best survive and reproduce in the environment it exists in, not the other way round.

Hi Dr. Lincoln, Do you mind to please explain why putting a high potential electric field across a cloud chamber produces more visible particle tracks than without the field? There are differing explanations floating around for this, but nothing very clear and certainly no consensus. Thanks.

I'd be interested in hearing a talk about microwave energy. In particular, can light energy become microwave energy if the distance traveled is multiple times the distance of the observable universe?

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

The CMB is thought to be the remnant of radiation from the Big Bang. As it has crosses an expanding universe it has cooled and the wavelength has gotten longer until it is microwaves. Light and microwaves are both electromagnetic radiation. Strictly speaking when something emits em radiation it does so over the whole spectrum so some was gamma rays and all the way down to radio waves originally

Except for watching the opening 6 minutes of Baby Driver every day, this is my favorite viewing on KZread. Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving, Dr. Don🦃🦃.

Hi Don.. does this multiverse idea has somehow to do with quantum mechanics (wave function) many worlds interpretation?

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

This is a very different idea from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

*Is there any is for many worlds interpretation in future?*

So does the multiverse that you described in today's episode have a relationship to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Hello! So glad to ask my first question here. Here it goes: At some point' right after the big bang shouldn't the density of the matter released be so great that it had to instantly form a black hole? Like when the universe was the size of a grapefruit shouldn't it be enaught to become a black hole? I know that the forces were all united and that gravity split first. Maybe that is the cause?

@IntraFinesse

3 жыл бұрын

Yes *BUT* - the universe was expanding at an insanely rapid speed, even after inflation ended, much much faster than today. The universe went from a few dozen light years at time = 1 second to the size of the Milky Way (10^5 light years) in 3 years. That rapid expansion rate gradually slowed. I've asked this question on various physics forums and haven't really gotten a good answer. They gave technical answers dealing with Einstein field equations. Another thing I'll point out is you don't get a black hole unless s there is a concentration of density. If the density is uniform you don't get a black hole. A block of lead that is infinite in size won't form a black hole.

@3rdrock

3 жыл бұрын

@@IntraFinesse I'm paraphrasing here and probably and quite poorly but Sabine Hossenfelder, kzread.info/dron/1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw.html, explained that the Schwarzschild equation, describes the formation of black holes in stationary space. At the big bang space was expanding somewhat.

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

Try this: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

@IntraFinesse

3 жыл бұрын

@@3rdrock Sabine has many videos, which one? Your link takes me to her page with many videos.

@3rdrock

3 жыл бұрын

@@IntraFinesse Sorry it was pretty recent but I can't remember which one.

Is there a higher energy of gravity and if so, does it also appear to unify with the other forces?

In the multiverse hypothesis, does the multiples universes share the same big bang ? _ By the way, I discovered this channel recently and I love it. Thanks for your work and your attention to random questions people like me ask every time.

@zeropol

3 жыл бұрын

@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks for the answer Hilmar !

In your Forces Graph when you added Supersymmetry, why did the lines get that little 'curve' at the start of the curve?

A question: if before electoweak symmetry breaking all particles are massless, does that mean there are no neutrino oscillations in the unbroken phase, and no oscillations between left- and right-handedness? If so, how does the proposed leptogenesis work again, doesn't it depend on neutrinos changing handedness?

Yay, new vid!!

I have a few questions.... 1..... Why would it take an intelligent designer to make fine tuning.... What if there was no fine tuning and no multiverse...... There was a one in a million lucky draw and we won!!! And can make video thinking it can't be pure chance??? 2.... What make scientists assume that the rate of change of physical law can be different in other pockets of universe??? 3..... why the physical law and/or constant will change just because it stem off from different point of different layers??? Can not the daughter universes have the same property of mother universe in inflation theory?? Thanks for the educational videos.... Huge fan....

42

Is the speed of light constant only in the current size of universe and faster in an expanded universe ? Or is it an absolute constant ?

Hello, I was wondering something...is the speed of a photon limited by the 'speed' of Gravity Waves? Or are Gravity Waves the 'carrier' mechanism of photons? I hope my questions naked sense.😊

2nd question: Does dark energy demonstrate any push on actual matter from one space to another, or does it only effect space itself? Alternately asked: is or isnt dark matter a "force" in the qm standard model sense of the word?

Hi, I am curious why speaking of multiverse ideas you seemingly avoid the topic of multiverse interpretation of QM. Was it intentional? Why?

If a particle of mass rebounds back in the opposite direction, it has to come to a complete stop before going back in the opposite direction. For that moment it is stopped, is it experiencing the maximum amount of time any mass can experience in the universe? For that matter, can a photon be reflected back in the same way in which it would have to come to an absolute stop before reversing direction and would this give it a momentary rest frame?

AFAIU, multiverse is a shape of universe in which bubbles are expanding along space axis, but what about a multiverse in which bubble are along time axis? What would it mean? I'd guess either having physical constants changing across time, but far slower than "our universe" lifetime if we're not able to bring it out; another guess would be that multiverse could be identical to "bouncing universe", in which universe would bounce and we are located in a rebound which is suitable for life, which is consistent with anthropic principle?

In the previous episode, you talked about the speed of light and of gravity. Light is related to electromagnetism. Its speed is related to the electric and the magnetic constants. Why the speed of gravity is the same? Does it mean that gravity is also related to electromagnetism?

What does it really mean for the laws of physics to change? If particles go over a sort of boundary, would they suddenly act differently? Or do different particles exist that always act the same no matter where they are in space? In that case, why would they exist somewhere else but not here?

I'm still not clear what's meant by "at higher energies" when referring to the universe (or space) rather than individual particles. I know that individual particles can have higher or lower kinetic (or relativistic) energies. But what does it mean when you say that in the past, the universe (or space) itself had a much higher energy? Are you still referring to the energy of the particles, that is, good old thermal energy? Or something different? Can space itself have different levels of energy at different times, even after excluding dark energy and any (real) particles within it?

I have a question that I can't seem to get a clear answer from. If you are traveling at the speed of light, in a ship for instance, and shine a light ahead of you, does the light from your flashlight travel twice the speed of light? for instance, if a particle is traveling at the speed of light and splits (or I should say the halves repel each other) where one half goes forward and the other goes backwards, wouldn't the forward piece travel faster than the speed of light?

Hi Dr. Don! One of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is called "Multiverse" So is that the same Multiverse that you explained in this video?

@JeffSpurlock

3 жыл бұрын

If you’re referring to Everett, I feel like they are vastly difference ideas, but could be rooted in the same physics. For instance, Everett’s interpretation is that every single time there is a quantum event, the universe splits into two branches, where both outcomes of the event occur; one in each “branch.” If this is true, we’re talking an unfathomably large number of new branches every single moment. This ends the observation issue, as the wave function does not collapse when observed, but instead the observer becomes entangled with the particle, and has now eliminated future possible branches they could both exist on. The multiverse dr. Don is talking about refers to many universes that all have different forms of physics, but, if we view it with along the lines of of evolution, there could have been early “branches” many of which spawned universes incapable of forming structure and eventually life, and a few that were capable, and the. Building in that branch, it evolves... so one single branch ends up viable, but then that branch splits into near infinite child branches, where everything that is possible does happen in at least one branch. Using the anthropology principle, we’re observing the universe on a branch that feels finely tuned, because we could have only evolved in a branch with the “finely tuned” parameters we observe. Im also not a scientist and just an armchair enthusiast, so, grain of salt :)

Could a multiverse / megaverse and fine tuned constants of nature come from quantum and inflation fields? Probability distributions of inflation / quantum fields develop variations of the constants of nature which grow into multiverse or megaverse?

there are few other explanations. Intelligent design is testable. Look for the creator signatures of the structures and processes that s/he controls to make the universe fine tuned. Or perhaps there are other explanation that some new science can come up with. Stay tuned.

so if the wave function that shrodinger talks about is unique to our universe, could the constants, and other universal traits be 'fine-tuned' to a different wave function, making a different conceivable universe? or, more importantly, is our universe the one that 'materializes' upon conscience will and/or observation? so the other ones can be there and not be there simultaneously, up until consious being or some other way of collapsing the wave function finally comes about? im sure none of that makes sense, thats why im asking. i apologize for my ignorance

How do you define “small change in parameters “? Regardless, you could divide any amount of change an infinite number of times , so you can have many values that would still make this universe work. That’s assuming of course we have it right in the first place.

How do we know a particle doesn't encounter a minute quantity of loss in energy in its trajectory through space? Assuming it's not light in an event horizon or a collision with mass as normally defined, but with space itself. Any known equations covering particles say tachyons encountering some negating effect through space itself? Same question 3 times :)

Do gravity waves interfere with the Dune or the particle accelerator experiments?

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

The waves have been measured by VIRGO and LIGO, which use huge tracks many kilometres in length to sensitively measure. Changes in length of about a millionth of a centimetre. So the waves have very small, virtually immeasurable effects. But yes they affect everything they radiate past.

Hi DOC, Just asking without seeing this episode y do photons are affected by black holes, though they are massless?

@AwijeetRishav

3 жыл бұрын

@Hilmar Zonneveld Thanks for introducing new term to me. it explains possibly bending of light. i was thinking, how it gets disappeared completely, it (light) should simply bent and move to observer, if BH was in the way? kindly elaborate

@AwijeetRishav

3 жыл бұрын

@Hilmar Zonneveld thanks for giving more clarity What about any other light (any wavelength any frequency) which is emitted from bh (even reflected ones) Y don't we observe it, as it should be visible to observer, considering we should witnesses lensing effect But we see non, we don't see blackholes?

@AwijeetRishav

3 жыл бұрын

Light is considered massless, bending is accepted by common sense but y don't we see reflected radiation (light) though If path is changed, it should be observable from other angles

@AwijeetRishav

3 жыл бұрын

Avoid typos, i m using mobile

Is there any relativistic explanation for gyroscopic effect?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Yes.

Can we detect other dimensions by measuring the time a beam of light takes to pass through some space. Example: If a beam of light takes 1 sec to travel from x1y1z0 to x2y2z0, it would take longer if we manipulate it in such a way that it also takes some time traveling in the Z dimension, and then returning to z0. (hard to explain without diagram) So if we make light beam travel in extra dimensions before returning, and it takes longer travel time, that could prove it had been roaming around.

Let's assume that there is a pair particle-artiparticle created. Is it possible for the detector to be located inside light cone of one but not the other one? Would that mean the detector will be able to register more and more particles or antiparticles (depending on type of the detector) but not the other one when they are showing up from nowhere?

Comparing plots at @13:00 which is measured intrinsic forces @14:00 forces according to SUSY. Does it mean that measurements have invalidated SUSY?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

SUSY is a broken symmetry, like GUT or the electro-weak force. It can only be made less likely, not really disproven.

hey don @fermilab, what is your favorite book? any book, not just physics or science, what book has effected YOU the most?

If the constants are zero, then the equation would give a Higgs mass of zero as well; supersymmetry disproved again?

#question Dr. Don, this is a bit off topic, but when a black hole evaporates, wouldn't there be a point when it ceases to be a black hole? That it no longer has enough mass and light is able to escape it?

Maybe there was the last big bang where the most of particles grained to the smallest equal size. The rest of particles varying in size...Infinity is possibility in between and is possible or impossible speed (unreal space) I don't know but phisic is awesome

I just realized that the lighting in all your videos is identical. All this time I imagine that there was a window to your left.

What is the tensional strength of space? How much 'give' is there before it pulls on the next consecutive location when space is warped? With the space between 2 close blackholes, does something about space stretch or is new space created between the blackholes to keep the amount of space there to maintain distance and then spacetime curves towards each blackhole to their curvatures saturation point? Why would space be smooth when everything else in the universe is quantized?

One possible multiverse model is one where each universe is contained within a black hole of a parent universe. Is there potentially some way to 'stitch' universes together like in Penrose's CCC but at the other end of the energy spectrum, within a black hole's supposed singularity? Or perhaps holographically projected onto an ER bridge expanding from the Kerr ring (just spitballing here :P). How does one even go about this, have there been any notable attempts?

Which video is about how the universe is 125M times bigger than the visible part? Can you link that too please? It's mentioned at 4:00

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

The radius of the universe is at least 500x bigger than the visible universe. Converting radius to volume, the effect is 500^3.

How is the intrinsic force(which you say is according to current "measurements") different from the measured force which you say includes the mass of the force-carrying particles? how is the intrinsic force measured separately?

@joseraulcapablanca8564

3 жыл бұрын

Good question, I hope the good Doctor answers that next time.

If we're seeing the radiation from the CMB, then shouldn't we also be receiving gravitational waves from it that the LIGO should be able to detect?

Brilliant video which I think I mostly understood. My view: It is fascinating to see a Super Sys graph showing the E & M, Weak and Strong forces merging as energy increases. I need ponder if Gravity would join them too as the energy increased to the singularity. I assume it would, this is fascinating because it explains how the four known forces split apart as the energy density in the early universe lowered from the singularity beginning. Regarding the multiverse, I did not realise it is a hypothesised theory to explain the seemingly intelligent design of this universe. This theory allows for those that don't believe in a creator (or whatever is the correct word for it, I don't like the word God) to understand how this universe is just right for matter to coalesce into all we can see in this uncomprehendingly gigantic universe. I don't believe in the multiverse after this video, I believe there is one universe. I believe in intelligent design of this universe. I would love to know more of the testing of higher dimensions. I have a feeling our universe is layered and lower dimensions cannot see the higher dimensions. I believe there are clues from the study of 'out of body' patient experiences, coma patients. Spirituality, has some interesting concepts of higher dimensions but I have not fully embraced the concept.

Wouldn't a second higgs or the stop be the lightest of the super symmetric particles? At least under 'simple' super symmetric models still consistent with the LHC results