Great video. Also, it was great meeting you last month!

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Hey Mr. Beat...Nice to see you here! I've been checking out your great videos myself.

@sreeakhilpulipaka3976

Жыл бұрын

Whoa two of my favorite educational youtubers from completely different fields meeting… It feels like a avengers youtuber crossover

I love your channel. Your information is accurate and not dumbed down. I feel like I learn something every vid. ☮️

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate that!

0:42 ‘‘‘Dark’ because we don't know...” I liked it how my lecturer, who was a Brit, had put it: “They are called ‘dark’ because we are not illuminated of their nature.” 🙂

Another fantastic video. Keep the good work Arvin

Amazing explanation as always! Really, really, it’s one of the best channels on KZread!

Great video! Thank you. This covers some of the most profound mysteries of our cosmos, and these questions you have posed, are what I often think about. The Quintessence Field for Dark Energy is an absolutely fascinating theory, it goes to the heart of trying to fully understand the fabric of Space/Time.

another great video, congrats. The english subtitles is a great help for not mother tongue like me, when is hard to understand I pause the video and I read again. Thank you Arvin, bravo from Italy :-)

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Glad you liked it! thank you

Great video and great content in you KZread channel Arvin. Love you ability to explain really deep subjects in a very simple an straightforward way!

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Glad you like them!

@uneducatedguess6740

Жыл бұрын

Compare to 5-min video titled "Time = Quantum Fluctuations. Gravity = Time Dilation. Strong Force = Gravity."

Another great video, thanks! 🌷 The graphic demonstrating how gravity and dark energy come to dominate their different regimes by overlaying the equation was really insightful.

Thank you so much Arvin, you are one of, if not the best, science and space teacher on the internet.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Thanks my friend. Much appreciated.

@faizanrana2998

Жыл бұрын

Yes he is the best because PBS sucks!!

Very nice video with compact information.

Thanks Arvinash for another great video,

Great video ❤ Thanks Alot for the video

Since dark energy has a gravitational repulsive effect, would a dark energy particle be a candidate for negative mass? I'm asking because a lot of solutions to equations involving stable wormholes and warp-bubbles involve exotic particles with negative mass.

@jakublizon6375

Жыл бұрын

Negative pressure, not negative mass. Negative mass doesn't seem possible. 2 masses would follow one another indefinitely.

@muahmuah4135

Жыл бұрын

Dark energy is a form of energy which we cannot/defined yet, it interacts with gravity by accelerating the expansion of the universe, anything that has mass tends to attract each other due to gravity but due to the presence of dark energy instead of attraction it tends to exert a repulsive effects and if dark energy is grater than we expect it even have the tendency to torn apart the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, and as for stable wormhole and warp drive they warp or distort the space around them using negative gravity and not negative mass, to stabilise a wormhole you would need a negative gravity which would hold the wormhole and prevent it from collapsing it unto itself, and as you said wormholes and warp drive work on the principle of distorting space around them to accelerate an object, in this case spaceships, also even if they do exist there is a possibility that the warp drive would not be able to stop and keeps on accelerating and if it could be stopped then it would destroy the neighbouring space around it, in simply world, warpdrive, hyperdrive, wormholes all require negative gravity not negative mass and its hard to belive that negative mass even existed, but off course it could exist again if String theory, and other multiversal theories turns out to be true after all they are probability that there might be multivers out there where the laws of physics as we know it works in a very different way

@apburner1

Жыл бұрын

The terminology used in the topic of expansion is bad. There is no repulsion between objects, spacetime is expanding carrying matter along with it.

@mahadevparmekar2565

Жыл бұрын

Theoretically yes. But at present dark energy seems to be distance dependent. (The further apart you are, the more the repulsion). Even if we find dark energy particles, we would not be able to concentrate them in one place to create wormholes or alcubierre drive.

@iwillwin7122

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/aomok7iim6nTYZs.html

Great information. Well done!

This is easily one of the best channels on youtube.

I'm glad someone finally covered this in detail. Nice job. It was extremely easy to understand.

Brilliant explanation! Love this dark matter/energy video! Thanks Arvin, my friend!!!

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

Great video, as always!

Well information. Good show.

great description

Perfect as usual, thank's a lot.

Thank you Arvin for all these materials and very interesting subjects presented. 👶

Great video, thanks

No question, just mentionning what a great educator you are. Thank you.

Wow thank you this video is really good

There's a conversation we need to have, you know, about the elephant in the room. Arvin describes how all the galaxies are 'moving' apart, or 'away from each other'. But the thing is, they're not. Most galaxies are not really moving at all, at least not at relativistic speeds, or even 'faster than the c', as is sometimes stated. They appear to be, because the light from them is so redshifted, but that is *not* because they are 'moving' away from us *through* spacetime, it is because the vast expanses of spacetime between us and them is 'expanding', so that light travelling over that expanse becomes progressively more stretched out to longer wavelengths as it travels, until it has been stretched so much, that it is undetectable. That is our cosmic horizon. Many people will be aware of this, including Arvin himself, of course, but the distinction is important. When we say the universe is expanding, what do we really mean? Is it really getting bigger, or is there just more 'spacetime'? And what, exactly, does that mean? Is there actually 'more' spacetime, or does there just appear to be? Because the galaxies are not actually 'moving', in any real sense of the word, it seems very contradictory to say that the universe is expanding, ie getting 'bigger' when nothing is actually 'moving' away from anything else. Since galaxies are not actually moving, then how can they be said to be 'further apart' with the passing of time? I do realise that everything we observe tells us this same story, that distant galaxies are exactly that, their light attenuated by billions of light years of 'distance', but that's billions of light years of spacetime, and may not be the same as 'distance' in the way we normally understand it. There has to be a better description of this, and I'm wondering if it relates to the flow of time. It is often said that the 'centre' of our universe, is a point in time, rather than a point in space; and in a similar way, I'm wondering if it would be better to describe distant galaxies as being 'distant in time', rather than 'distant in space'. But according to Einstein, space and time are inseparable, they are facets of the same 'thing'. What exactly is this 'thing'? It seems so ambiguous, so difficult to understand, and yet Einstein himself made sense of it, to the extent that he could describe it mathematically in his equations of relativity. Hey Arvin, could you examine some of these ideas/apparent paradoxes in one of your videos? I absolutely love your content, and the Bobby Cole outro music just killed me!! 👏👏🚀🚀

👍thanks My favorite knowledge provider (one out of the best teacher)

The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No? I think Einstein's wrong, that time is constant and that dark matter is the limiting factor to the speed of light. I think it’s not 'space-time' bending but rather gravitational and dark matter density variations.

Really liked it

The word “dark” shows the incredible creativity and eloquence of scientists.

Great ending!

Glad videos like this existed to explain it in simple words simply learning the mathematical equations, even simply for Einstein field equation already gave me enought headache as it is.

Great video as always! I think that we're still missing so much knowledge that science is just scratching the surface of reality. If somehow we could understand what spacetime is exactly we could find many answers for black holes, dark matter, dark energy... Maybe we could even solve the unification of GR and QM.

Hi Arvin. Two exceptionally cool things in this video for me. 1. The word quintessence. I remember this from my high school Shakespeare in which Hamlet, pondering humankind, asks "And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" (a great philosophical question). 2. The equation showing mathematically how gravity dominates at small distances, and the cosmological constant at greater distances. Your style of explaining complex things like this simply makes me feel clever, because realize I am understanding stuff that I would have thought beyond me - the great strength of your channel. My question for you to consider is this: Could you dig a little deeper, maybe in another video, into this "runaway expansion" aspect of quintessence? Maybe answer: How and why does a quintessence theory of dark energy speed up the end of the universe? Is this something faster - and more dramatic - than the ordinary heat death of the universe, expected by our current (and already increasing) rate of expansion? How quick and-or violent is each one? Potential for some cool graphics by your graphics people too.

@mrburn6119

Жыл бұрын

mathematical theory totally different than observed effect, and no mathematical theory of gravity matches observed reality. Even Einstein couldn't get it right!

A wonderful analogy with Newtonian Gravity! Simplifies a lot!

Thanks Marvin

Alan Guth talks about the energy of expansion being used to create further pocket universes as infinitum. It’s an interesting theory. Sometimes I wonder if the universe itself is evolving.

11:57 1. The Big Rip: rips quarks. 2. Confinement: "Am I a joke to you?!"

At the 6:52 point, Ash notes that lambda has the units of inverse seconds squared. It is actually inverse length squared.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

You can state in different units. Inverse length is also valid, but the number would be different. This is because in physics, typically natural units are used. At the end of the day, units are something we define. It’s just important to be be consistent and able to convert between them in using the equations.

@diiiina07

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh this shows why i love Arvin uncle 😊.

@Lucky10279

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh What type of natural units were you using? I was researching natural units a few weeks ago and discovered there were multiple different such systems, depending on which constants are set to 1.

@destructionman1

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if this is the source of the confusion but ... In relativity, distance is often interchangeable with time, using c (speed of light) to translate between the two. You are free to use either, provided you are consistent.

@weylguy

Жыл бұрын

@@destructionman1 You're right, they're interchangeable. Ash made the same comment.

Hmm. If the expansion became strong enough that it forced quarks apart, but everytime they were forced apart new quarks are created, would the universe eventually be densely packed with quarks and new quarks being created for eternity?

@mondkalb9813

Жыл бұрын

Interesting. That would look like a Big Bang with hyper inflation.

@declandougan7243

Жыл бұрын

I believe the sphere of causality also shrinks as the range of dark energy’s radius of influence gets smaller, so there would be no space for quarks to form into.

@Maxwell_FromTheLand

10 ай бұрын

Just like the cells that compose our bodies, and we never know the difference…

This video was about the possibility of DE being a quantum field. I'd love a follow up video considering the ideas of Erik Verlinde where it is information that drives the expansion and not a quantum field

All nice program❤

We clearly haven't understood the medium of space and the possibility of substrata. No only with dark energy but also with gravity.

Hello, Mr. Arvin & team, first of all thank you very much for such succicnt description without removing the equations (understanding each component of equations in your video gives me the best satisfaction) of the hypothetical dark energy particle for non-physics people like me. Secondly, i have 2 questions :- Q1) What does that '3' depict at 4:10 in the equation? Q2) Peviously i learned from your videos that, when we try to separate quarks, we encounter the phenomenon of colour confinement? So, my question is, will this phenomenon occur during BIG RIP, if it ever happened? Thank you for your time. [DiowE]

Is it possible that we could one day utilise the vacuum/zero-point/dark energy? Could we use this to power a vehicle in space for example? Fantastic video, nicely explained.

@bryanchambers1964

Жыл бұрын

Yes, if you could manipulate the quantum foam somehow you should be able to tell the space how to bend itself and create a singularity. This technology could be thousands of years away though, but like he said "we need another Einstein to figure it out for us."

Very understandable Arvin, thanks 👍.

The variable speed of light and machs principle allows for a static universe. I think it might be a compelling alternative to what you are proposing.

The recent update from the Dark Energy Survey collaboration has an estimation for ω very close to -1 This is expected, if dark energy is due to a constant of Nature ( like Λ in the standard interpretation ). On the other hand , in the Quintessence models this seems like an implausible and weird coincidence . So, despite the various speculative models, it seems that the Cosmological Constant is still the most natural option for dark energy.

Buddy, how can you so easily outdo yourself so often? Big cheers! I don't see how it could've been any clearer. Even my friends who don't do science might be able to grasp it. You a seriously good explainer, sir!

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

many thanks

@mikel4879

Жыл бұрын

The S Sht / Sure it's easy! Imaginary things are the easiest to understand and explain. You can do it too exactly like Arvin...!🤣😂🤣

@thesecondslit1710

Жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 LOL

I always get existential crisis when thinking about the end of the universe, i know it doesn't make sense as i will be long dead, but i find it sad that at some point there will be no live.

Einstein was so bad ass that even when he was wrong, he was right.

Now after watch this video I am able to understand the 'einstein biggest blunder' because you really show parts and meaning of the equaiton. Thank you.

I was playing around with some numbers, trying to get an understanding of the scale of 10^120. And apparently the planck length diameter of the visible universe, squared, is less than one order of magnitude different from the vacuum catastrophe. It's probably just a coincidence, but it's such an oddly precise and seemingly relevant equality, that it feels significant. Pretty sure they fall firmly inside each other's error bars.

I wish we could come up with different names other than Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The idea that our universe is expanding was first observationally discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929. Before this discovery, Einstein had introduced the cosmological constant to keep the universe from collapsing under the influence of gravity. Two opposite ideas that exchange importance in waves over time.

The closer you get to a mass, the slower time flows. Is dark energy a description of this? In the space between galaxies, very little mass, time flows faster & expansion rate increases relative to that in galaxies?

Is the actual numerical value of the cosmological constant the same number when Einstein used it, verses when we use it today? If not, is it merely adjusted or corrected... or is it really a completely different constant altogether?

This is a question about gravity and its effect on time. I consider that gravity is caused by the distortion of time and that distortion is caused by energy/matter, especially when it's clumped together. As we know it has been observed that time will dilate in a gravitational field (or conversly gravity gets stronger when time gets dilated). We also know that all the particles of an object, say the earth, combine to make up the gravitational field which we and other orbiting things experience here on and around the earth. If we were to tunnel into the earth, we would begin to get pulled in opposite directions and the gravitational pull that we'd experience would be the vector sum of the gravitational pull of all the particles, direction would play a part. So, as we aproach the center of the earth we would begin to feel less and less gravity (assuming we don't burn up but that's another story). So, in the center of the earth there would be no net gravitational pull. Would there still be time dilation? I would expect so as we are still in a gravity field but that is only an educated assumption.

Amazing Video Arvin. so you think Dark Matter and Dark Energy are totally different things? are there any similarities? and please talk about JWST and Eric Lerner's idea which leads to Big bang debunk

If dark energy or matter are actually particles I think they are somehow locked up within spacetime itself. Perhaps if we could create gravitational waves with enough energy spacetime would radiate particles much the way electromagnetism radiates photons.

@edcunion

Жыл бұрын

Gravitoelectromagnetism?!

The Cosmological Constant has units of 1/s^2... which would be equivalent to hz^2, right? So what are the implications of thinking of it like that? As a frequency value across two time dimensions?

Love your videos...wondering if you had a video about this thought, since i watch cause i don't understand :), " if the universe is infinite or near to it and it is made of 'quintessence' or dark x, then wouldn't it make sense that the overall sum of gravity from all the infinite/near infinite quintessence would pull apart the universe faster and faster as we have observed? If it isn't infinite, could Lamba be used to calculate a theoretical size of the universe?"

9:18 also believe that: 1 fire is are spark, electric monopole causes it. 2 water is are wave, magnetic dipole causes it. 3 earth is are mass, mass 3-pole causes it. 4 air is are gravity, gravitational 4-pole causes it. 5 Quintessense is are space-time 5-pole.

What if the universe is a kinda like a growing/expanding “balloon” with a “soap bubble-like surface” (witch is moving and fluent on the surface just like a soap bubble is and “would explain” that galaxies and stars and planets etc can merge and “move around”)? Everything we see and can interact with is on the surface of the “balloon/soap bubble”. The galaxies, stars etc are like dots on the surface and “stays together” (what you would call Dark matter - the “balloon/soap bubble” in it self) but would eventually even they themself get “pulled appart” when the “balloon/soap bubble” gets big/stretched enough that it even pulls the dot on the “balloon/soap bubble” apart stretching and stretching as moore and moore “air” (aka Dark energy) makes the “balloon/soap bubble” bigger and bigger. The “balloon/soap bubble” is also the fabric of spacetime itself. It is stretchable (why I say a “balloon”) in itself and if you put like a “ball/marble” (galaxies, black holes, planets etc) on the surface of the “balloon” with different weight you would get different indents in the fabric of the spacetime (just like we see that they make with gravity in the spacetime fabric - aka the “balloon”). The “air” in the “balloon/soap bubble” is what we would call Dark energy. You can’t “see” or “interact” with it in a sense (right now but perhaps in the future like “underspace”) as it is the “underlying” thing that makes the “balloon/soap bubble” grow and get bigger and bigger (how big and stretched can and will it get before it eventually perhaps pops if it can?). It would also “explain” why it would appear that the galaxies far away seems to be moving faster and faster away from us. As the “balloon/soap bubble” gets bigger and bigger the distant between the stretched out galaxies would seem to move faster and faster even thou the “amount of air” blown into the “balloon/soap bubble” is the same at “all” time. The “balloon/soap bubble” keeps getting bigger and bigger and that makes the galaxies far away seem to move faster then they do as the “balloon/soap bubble” in it self is getting bigger and bigger. Just a thought and a hypothetical theory of mine. /Jan Skogsberg

IF it is dynamical dark energy, then that guy that won the Noble Prize in inflation theory may be right? That in the early universe, very early, dark energy has a repulsive force in the order as predicted by quantum theory? Imagine harnessing that kind of energy.

The Missing Constant is the Music of the Universe.

Could the velocity of light be increasing with time, perhaps because the density of virtual particles it interacts with in space is decreasing? Wouldn't that be interpreted as an accelerating expansion of the universe?

Ok can someone please explain this to me better because this accelerated expansion never made sense to me. Wouldn’t it make sense that the further back we look the faster galaxies are moving away from us because they are further back in time. If everything started from a bang everything would be moving fast and gravity would slow everything down eventually. So wouldn’t it make sense the further back in time galaxies were the less they have been slowed from gravity and therefore they should be moving faster away from us than closer galaxies? If the universe expansion is accelerated wouldn’t the closer galaxies, the ones that have had more time to accelerate are the ones that would be moving faster away?

What if space itself was actually a particle that we can't interact with, because my understanding of hawking radiation is that space around a black hole is compressed to a point where they become matter anti-matter pairs, anti-matter falls in while the matter escapes. So that would mean that when they attract and annihilate they become "energy", what if this energy is space, that would also mean that there would definitely be a limit to how small of a particle we can observe simply because there would be a point where the particle is smaller than the space that surrounded it.

The answer is in the very core of a black hole. This is the source of the vacuum in the universe, getting used up by the photons as they fly about the center, pulling outward to create the vacuum. The vacuum then fills the universe emanating from the black hole in waves. Vacuum-directed is the force that pulls things together and in places it overcomes the expected gravitation from nearby objects. That's when it's called dark matter, but when it fills the spaces between galaxies, it's called quintessence because it has no direction and therefore just tugs on everything. Eventually though each star absorbs enough quintessence to heat up and uses it to create space between atoms and molecules and one day concentrates it back into it's black holes and then the process repeats.

There are those like Unzicker’s Real Physics channel who offer a different view. That is, variable speed of light, which would adjust the expansion issue.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

All kinds ot things can be hypothesized, but there is no evidence for a variable speed.

1. What are differences and similarities of state of subatomic particles in Big Bang and supermassive black holes? 2. If state of matters are similar how come cooling down temperature exponentially within micro or milli seconds led to formation of electrons, protons etc. after Big Bang and such cooling and aftereffects are not observed in supermassive black holes? 3. 3.3 times solar mass is required to undergo black hole formation after consumption of all fuel. Other stars of lesser mass will be white dwarfs or neutron stars. If mass is so critical for formation of black holes, most of the mass in dead stars away from center will lack minimum mass to affect entire mass turned into black holes. That means centre may be black holes whereas outer layers should be full of neutrons. But I am not aware of such descriptions to date.

Bravo

is there any connection with dark energy (increasing rate of universe expansion / doppler red shift) and entropy? Or does (and if so, how does) entropy effect dark matter?

Think I saw Etienne Klein at the beginning. What a great French Science man he is.

Quintessence sounds a lot like the Lumeniferous Aether (an undetected field that permeates all spacetime through which light was once thought to propagate.)

@feynstein1004

Жыл бұрын

You read my mind lol. Looks like it's just ethers all the way down, or in this case up 😂

@JosePineda-cy6om

Жыл бұрын

dark matter sounds a lot like aether as well

@psmoyer63

Жыл бұрын

Maxwell's Aether was particulate and relativistic, moving in all directions at the speed of light -- see Whittaker.

@smlanka4u

Жыл бұрын

Dark energy is a wrong concept. Isn't Dark Energy is being used to ignore the fact that Big Bang didn't create space, and space existed before Big Bang? Space existed before the Big Bang. And therefore, the matter could move into space, and space could come into matter areas. Seemingly, the concept of Dark Energy is a scientific lie because it hides (is being used to hide) the existence of the universe before the Big Bang. If the center of the universe should have a higher density, and matter moves away from the center of the universe, then a Big Bounce would make the required density at the center again as a cyclic process. Seemingly, space causes to continue that process somehow. And there is nothing else that really exists called Dark ENERGY. The density of the space beyond the island universe and inside the island universe is different because there was space beyond the island universe before the Big Bang. Therefore, the galaxies have to move away from each other to balance the density between those areas. Using the word Energy to explain that process is misleading and ignores the fact that Big Bang didn't create all the space. And most people ignore the fact that the universe is gaining space from somewhere. So, using a name like Dark Space to mention the growth of space in the observable universe is better than calling it Dark Energy. General relativity is only a geometric theory and doesn't make the quantum reality.

@anttikangasvieri1361

Жыл бұрын

Aether specifies preferred reference frame, quitessence does not. They are not the same.

Great explanations. I enjoyed the clarity of understanding the components of Einsteins equation. It helped to set the context of the problem.

@surendranmk5306

Жыл бұрын

Can you tell me what is gravitation. I don't have any clear understanding!

@hupekyser

Жыл бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 can anybody?

@dr.jamesolack8504

Жыл бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 Are you insinuating that gravity doesn’t exist??

@surendranmk5306

Жыл бұрын

@@hupekyser when this question asked to Nobel prize awarded kip thorne ,' it is a meaning less question " he answered!

@hupekyser

Жыл бұрын

@@surendranmk5306 so gravity is meaningless? You're trying to speak in riddles here. But if i had to guess what you're getting at.... God did it?

From the perspective of the emanated created realms, Creation takes place "Yesh me-Ayin" ("Something from Nothing"). From the Divine perspective, Creation takes place "Ayin me-Yesh" ("Nothing from Something"), as only God has absolute existence; Creation is dependent on the continuous flow of Divine lifeforce, without which it would revert to nothingness.

Yes the higgs field is where I predict it to be and the higgs field is trapped in what I would describe as a gravity field or the higgs field is the gravity field. In order to have restriction there must be a contrast between the two forces, in other words from a certain perspective they need to run in opposite directions. That can occur if both forces are traveling at the same speed in opposite directions or one is traveling at twice the speed as the other. I prefer the latter that way massless particles can move as fast as they do, which is the difference in speeds and that difference is the speed of light. while massed particles encounter restriction while traveling through the gravity field. This restriction pushes mass together and forms structures.

Q: has anyone considered that the massive difference in figures may be coming from the virtual particles? I mean, sure, they are not "real", but they still need energy and/or mass. This to me sounds like a really straightforward explanation.

there's a theory i've heard before that gravity is basically just the effect of dark energy repelling matter away from itself, as opposed to an attractive force between physical objects...reminds me a lot of the things discussed in this video...ties into the use of toroidal field generators for energy production, but still super..."esoteric" lines of study at this point...

Hi Arvin. Your video at 0:38 and 10:50 reminds me of ancient Indian shastras - Brahma (Dark Matter), Vishnu (Visible Matter) and Mahesh (Dark Energy). Creator, Maintenance and destroyer of Universe. What do you think?

@vanshpatel7605

Жыл бұрын

Also, as per the Indian shastras, the destroyer is considered as most powerful (Dark energy 68.5%), then creator ( Dark matter 26.5%) and than maintainer (Visible Matter 5%)

Shine a laser pointer on a wall, now rotate (yaw) the pointer in your hand so the dot moves along the wall. The further you rotate your hand, the faster the dot moves on the wall, even though your hand is rotating the pointer at a constant speed. It may be that the apparent expansion of the universe is analogous to this effect. Merely just the way steady extra-dimensional motion manifests to our limited perception of reality. At least that's the explanation that seems most likely to me.

Is with proton decay contraction a possibility

Hi Arvin, thanks for the video. Is it not possible that the effect of dark matter is an intersection with matter from another universe in a multiverse where different laws apply except for gravity?

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

There is no evidence of this, and that hypothesis is probably not testable. Anytime a mystery is attempted being explained by other unproven mysteries, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

@edwardrazzano1906

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh Many thanks for your response. Ideally the phenomena of dark energy and matter will be explicable within the near future.

When electromagnetic "waves" lose/expend energy due to the expansion of space or as they "climb out" of a "gravity well", and they get red-shifted, where does that lost energy go?

Never forget that models of the universe and mathematical equations used in the models are at best approximations.

Hello Mr. Ash, only today I found and subscribed your channel (from 🇩🇪), thank to great Sabine Hossenfelder😎 For long I have at least 2 gnarling questions: (1) How do we actually know that the universe is expanding even in an accelerated way? Red-shifted galaxies we observe can at most tell us an expansion rate in the past. If expansion accelerates this red shift should increase for comparable distances of galaxies closer to us (recent past) than further away. But we can't tell where they are now, and with the same red shift we determine their apparent distance (not at the same time) and their acceleration? Is both even possible? I guess we can't even tell their local velocities or where they are today. With a seeming Hubble "constant" there should be no acceleration, right? (2) Could Dark Energy or Quintessence be in some means a counteraction to the gravitational local warping of space time in a sense of energy conservation? It seems not, since both energy forms have different dimensions, also in dependence of R. But if Dark energy maybe is a constant energy density of space, where does more space come from?

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Welcome aboard. There really is no such thing as "right now" on a cosmic scale. There is no reason to believe that what we are observing in our telescopes has changed in any way over time. If it did, we would be able to observe it. Regarding your second question, we cannot say that “space is being created”. All we can say is that, on the largest scales, everything is flying away from everything else, which simply means that there is more distance between galaxies today than there was in the past. But this does not mean that any space is being created. Space is not really a thing by itself. If there was nothing in space, there would be no way for us to measure any distances. All we know is that things are moving apart at an accelerated rate over very large distances.

@Dr.RiccoMastermind

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh thank you very much for your quick and kind answer! I like to see things the way you are, but it poses questions 😊 So in what sense does expansion accelerates? Rather because the volume increases non-linearly with a constant expansion rate in any given direction ("no reason to believe ... changed in any way over time"). Are you saying we dont see a slower or faster expansion in the data of old/far away galaxies? Since all Hubke flow diagrams I saw show linear trends. It is always said the "space grid" itself expands accelerating, leading to the great rip, and Dark Energy might be the constant space energy density. So even if space is not created it seems to be filled with more total energy while growing. Ah... all this is so mind-buggling and fascinating. Thank you again for your great videos!!! 😎❤️🇩🇪

@Dr.RiccoMastermind

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh ah, this cool video is giving a brief answer to our data suggestion an accelerating expansion. So the curve is not linear. kzread.info/dash/bejne/poyfpMikla2wZcY.html I love this channel 😎

So, Johnson noise has to be a by product of some equation? Everything on the left of the equation has has to match on the right side of the equal sign... right?

It's said that gravity warps time, but could be be the reverse? If the universe has areas of faster or slower time, that would either attract or repel spacetime. Dark energy might be areas of space with faster running time, which would expand space. Areas with slower running time would attract.

During the big rip, wouldn't the energy required to pull the elementary particles from each other, overpowering gluons, create new particles? If so, I think it makes sense that a "big bang" of matter creation could happen in the same period. You would have fundamental particles being ripped away from each other and created at the same time, which would be ripped apart as well. Then there's the event horizon aspect of space in that time as well. Time would be slowed by the speed of the expansion being so fast as to envelop each point with its own event horizon, and time would cease to be relevant. The presence of so much matter and energy being created may give you an early universe filled with a broiling soup of fundamental particles, much like is theorized a trillionth of a second after the big bang we have studied.

@ArvinAsh

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

@tpros6289

Жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh Lol. Would that be considered a continuation of this universe or a new one? Also, I like to think how there's a striking similarity between particle pairs creating new pairs with the energy of being ripped apart, and our universe being created from the energy of the old one being ripped apart

Is it possible that different kind of energy waves when faces resistance of Higgs field while propagation creates subatomic particles of different nature. Is it possible that continuous energy to mass and mass to energy transformation has created the universe?

Great video. Thank you for pointing out this will take 100 of billions years to happen. I could sleep well tonight. :)

The part about the big rip? Scary as f#ck. It's like the ultimate form of isolation. Every point, infinitely separated from every other point, for all eternity. Loneliness forever.

The analogy I tend to use is: The Big Bang was like a drop of milk in coffee, slowly but increasingly mixing with what was already there. This would mean that I am partial to branes (and perhaps M theory).

Do electron "decay" (longer wave length) by just travelling? If so, do they "decay" in proportional quanta? Because the redshift could be different within each wave length and give the ideia of accelareted expansio... I guess...

I think we want dark matter/energy to be similar to things we currently have explained to a decent extent...and I think that is a fallacy. The observations are more favorable for a model where universe is in fact collision of >=2 universes. Universe A = here before Big Bang Universe B (and higher) causing the Big Bang (or multiple BBs, we just can't observe the others) Its permissible in most theories/expansions of standard model etc. It would mean that the 'native universe' may have particles/energy and some of these may be able to interact or even be same/similar to the particles/energy in the colliding universe (B). It may mean that universe A could also have something that is not a wave/particle/energy...not the sort we have observed (that came from Universe B). It gets a bit difficult to grasp the implications, but can also readily explain many of the big unanswered questions: - baryon assymetry is quite simply explained because universe A didn't have a porportional amount of particles that would be 'antiparticles' to those from universe b...thus resulting in baryonic matter seemingly being prevalent (from univ. B). - time/gravity may not be native to both universes and thus something like a croniton could maybe only be observable via interacting with particles/molecules from univ A...since it doesn't interact with univ B; yet since molecules made of baryonic matter reside in the universe time was native to, they may still observe time (as a foreign/non-qualitative/non-quantitative phenomenon. - SMBHs need not be the same thing as stellar-mass BHs: IE what holds them together and is at their center need not be the same. stellar-mass BHs could be dictated by the 4 forces we observe; while SMBHs could have only particles native to universe A at their core: ripping apart galaxies/stars may just be their interaction, with relativistic jets 'ejecting' the foreign particles/energy that are incompatible.

But just because the expansion is accelerating doesn’t mean it will continue, we maybe in the early stage of expansion and it will start slowing when we get closer to equilibrium that space will eventually end up?

When we discovered that the planets weren't attached to anything but just "floated" around the Sun we came up with the "Aether" to explain it...we were wrong then and we're wrong now.