As an experienced engineeer, I advise to just take the average of these two results and call any remaining difference a safety margin.

@clsanchez77

Ай бұрын

As an experienced civil engineer, we should take the average and round it to the nearest integer and then call it a day. Any difference would be not constructible any way.

@James-ll3jb

Ай бұрын

😅

@Tinil0

Ай бұрын

As an experienced unemployed person, I advise to just put off actually solving the problem until tomorrow, you really need to relax every now and then

@clsanchez77

Ай бұрын

@@Tinil0 why do tomorrow what can wait for the day after tomorrow.

@hajinezhad3

Ай бұрын

That might explain why doors are flying off our planes.

I used to work on fire alarms. One time we had a problem where the alarm wasn't being heard in one room of a factory. Everything was installed correctly, the volume output of the device was where it should have been, there was nothing we could find that would explain why it wasn't working. Then they turned on the machinery. It turns out the frequency of the sound of the machine was canceling out the frequency of the notification device.

@Novastar.SaberCombat

Ай бұрын

I designed over 9000 sounds (over the course of about one decade). I can confirm that resonance is indeed a tricky thing, and unexpected cancellations can occur in both the most bizarre ways, but sometimes also the "obvious yet not so obvious" manners as well. 😁 There was one particular sound I generated (of those 9000+) which essentially resonated at the exact frequency of the speaker tubes it was going to be played within. ANY other speaker system was fine... but not the typical place where the sound was going to end up being played. Lemme tell ya... THAT... was a *disaster*. 😂 I chased that issue around until I realized everyone was usin' tinier speakers (28mm?), but my test projects had 36mm and 40mm ones. 🙄 Yeesh. *ONE* sound out of 9000. Drove me nutttzzz.

@spvillano

Ай бұрын

@@Novastar.SaberCombatgood old resonance and destructive interference. Standing waves in the path of the sound waves can also make life interesting.

@jeebusk

Ай бұрын

Sound canceling?

@sf4137

Ай бұрын

@@jeebusk Yep.

@thomasquwack9503

Ай бұрын

@@EhmannJasonno, the sound of the machinery and of the alarm canceled each other out.

This problem sounds awfully similar to the UV Catastrophe 100 years ago. A brand new quantum revelation is needed for this I think.

@p5rawQ

Ай бұрын

That was exactly my thought! And the solution was light is only emitted in quanta. This is I guess why that space time quanta was suggested.

@crazieeez

Ай бұрын

Or string theory :)

@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer

Ай бұрын

I think knot@@crazieeez

@nox6438

Ай бұрын

hehehehe@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer

@isomeme

Ай бұрын

I just posted nearly the same comment. They really do sound very similar.

42 is starting to look more and more correct.

@anonymes2884

Ай бұрын

Time to start working on the question.

@comlitbeta7532

Ай бұрын

​​@@anonymes2884 We know what the question is, it's in the books.

@XtreeM_FaiL

Ай бұрын

It is not incorrect, but what is the question.

@peterfireflylund

Ай бұрын

What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

@poudink5791

Ай бұрын

That is not the question. Earth prevented from computing the true question due to interference from the Golgafrinchans. Furthermore, even without said interference, Earth was destroyed minutes before the question was scheduled to be complete. Also, it is suggested that it is impossible for the question and the answer to be simultaneously known in any given universe.

Adding up all wavelengths sounds like when I ordered EVERY toppings on my pizza (I could choose any with no additional charge). I thought I was smart, until I received the pizza, and realized that the total amount of toppings is always the same, and it is shared amongst my choices. So I got a little of everyhting.

@Takyodor2

Ай бұрын

🥦

@petermainwaringsx

Ай бұрын

When wavelengths are mentioned I think about electromagnetic radiation, which has frequency and amplitude. Would the amplitude of the "hum" decrease as the frequency increased, with the amplitude approaching zero as the frequency approaches infinity? I've been a radio comms engineer for half a century, and the two waveforms are probably different things, and I'm talking garbage. But if you don't ask, you don't get.

@thorr18BEM

Ай бұрын

​@@petermainwaringsxthe frequency doesn't surpass the plank limit though.

@kubhlaikhan2015

Ай бұрын

Your mistake was in ordering pizza when the universe is really pasta.

@infinityessentials

Ай бұрын

exactly, there is one choice of frequency per piece of space/fabric according to your idea amirite?

Hi Dr. Don. You rock dude.

@Vatsek

Ай бұрын

No dude, you rock!

@marioluna2957

Ай бұрын

Santa Lincoln roared 👍

@ShaheenGhiassy

Ай бұрын

+1

@soaringvulture

Ай бұрын

Well, he rocks for a physicist. Having played in a band with physicists, it's not a high standard. Except for Brian May.

@jeffspaulding9834

Ай бұрын

@@soaringvulture Brian May rocks enough for ALL the physicists, though.

As always, Brilliant video. Thank you Dr. Lincoln and crew.

Awesome video as always! Another detail about where disagreement lurks between general relativity and quantum theory. Thank you for the information, Dr. Don

This reminds me of the UV catastrophe that Planck hacked late in the 19th century.

@giorgiobarchiesi5003

Ай бұрын

I was about to say exactly the same. 👍

@juliusmazzarella9711

Ай бұрын

We need another Planck to tweek an equation of vacuum radiation and jump start a new revolution...

@firstnamelastname7941

Ай бұрын

That is what I was thinking.

@qevvy

Ай бұрын

I imagine that's partly the inspiration for quantized spacetime theories?

@LuisAldamiz

Ай бұрын

I actually said the same in a separate comment, ha!

Wow Don, In 10-minutes, you really outdid yourself on this one! Thanks for the great explanation. It was enlightening!

great video! the "crazy" speculation is what leads to advancements, even if small steps. thanks for sharing…

I'm subscribed with the bell on and just today I realised that I haven't seen a video from this channel for good couple of months.......

@jeebusk

Ай бұрын

Yeah that happens a lot, Just click the video tab so you can go through them in chronological order.

Haven't we been here before? The ultraviolet catastrophe, anyone?

Really fun and informative video to start my morning! Minor point, but the transition music is really loud so can be hard to hear when that's playing

Doc you are just getting better and better! ❤

You are an excellent science communicator Don. thank you for sharing this with us

LINCOLN!!!! I've been watching you for years now. Questions on Lincoln Logs of years ago aside, you do good work, and are probably underrated as a science communicator. Maybe that's because you concentrate on work as well as communication! Keep up the learnin' brother. #ENLEARNIFICATE!

@patricklincoln5942

Ай бұрын

Who is Lincoln? Who are you writing to?

@bothewolf3466

Ай бұрын

@@patricklincoln5942GODS! You guys multiply!?!?!? AAAAGGGHHH!

@mygirldarby

Ай бұрын

​@patricklincoln5942 he's obviously talking about the man in this video. His name is Don Lincoln, but even if I didn't know that, it would be easy to infer from the comment that the man in the video is named Lincoln.

@patricklincoln5942

Ай бұрын

@@mygirldarby: You are right. I think I was in disbelief, because it is my last name too. Not very common.

@rfichokeofdestiny

Ай бұрын

@@mygirldarbyNah, he’s clearly using the name of the 16th President of the United States as an exclamation, as in “Oh, God!”

Even though I wasn't much interested at first, I enjoyed this. Nice, clear and concise, exactly what physics *should* be. I'm a fan of elegant simplicity.

@pinkfongbabyshark-kidssong8533

17 күн бұрын

Physic is simple tho

Always enjoy your work.

🔥 Thanks Dr. Don: As always very interesting.

As a programmer, I bet dark energy is the same as the usual root of all evil in the world floating-point rounding errors.

@timhaldane7588

Ай бұрын

"Wake up, Neo..."

@rogerkearns8094

Ай бұрын

If only the universe program code were annotated...

@cosmicraysshotsintothelight

Ай бұрын

As a programmer, somebody is gonna make you walk the Planck.

@LarryBorsinger

Ай бұрын

After some thought agree with the two field approach ... The worst prediction in physics is often attributed to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant itself is a purely derived constant and not a fundamental one. So, which fundamental constant should we consider when addressing this problem? Another constant used in general relativity is referred to as Einstein’s constant kappa, which Einstein merely considered as a constant connected to Newton’s gravitational constant. From a quantum perspective, the energy density of empty space is equal to or proportional to Planck’s energy density. Restating Einstein’s constant in terms of energy density, it becomes the Planck frequency squared divided by the Planck energy density. If we express the cosmological constant in terms of frequency squared, we can determine the energy density of the universe. After rearranging some terms, the energy density of the universe becomes the Planck energy density multiplied by the ratio of the cosmological constant’s frequency squared to the Planck frequency squared. This frequency squared ratio is crucial for understanding the cosmological constant problem. In mechanical vibration, the frequency squared ratio often serves as an amplification/damping ratio or coupling constant. Therefore, we can assume that the cosmological constant’s energy density is coupled to the Planck energy density, accounting for the 120 orders of magnitude difference.

@thalikoth6171

Ай бұрын

@@rogerkearns8094 No source available, that's why we have reverse-engineers (scientists).

Great video, thanks! I hope we'll have a resolution during my lifetime. Hurry!

@vothaison

Ай бұрын

Good reason to stay strong and healthy, live long and see the break through in science.

With this one, I think it's best to keep in mind a fundamental verification problem of theories of empty space. How would one verify a theory of empty space, if empty space can't be measured directly? The General Relativity approach appears to be subtractive - to take out all the "stuff". The Quantum Mechanical approach also appears to be subtractive - to cancel out all the wavelengths. I wonder if these two approaches don't produce different empty spaces? In theory, it appears that they do. General Relativistic empty space seems to be some volume, but the quantum mechanical solution makes it difficult to even verify that much!

@adventureswithfrodo2721

Ай бұрын

The heart of science is don't know.

@tlwmdbt

Ай бұрын

By measuring the energy of vacuum? The Heisenberg rules are also measurable. Zero point energy is directly related. As far as I know....

@JonBrase

Ай бұрын

When physicists talk about the Higgs Boson giving mass to other particles, they're actually talking about the zero-particle state (vacuum state) of the Higgs Field. If there were no residual fluctuations in fields in their vacuum state, this wouldn't work, and electrons would be massless (most of the everyday stuff around us would still have mass because most of the mass of protons and neutrons isn't from the Higgs).

@charlesbrightman4237

Ай бұрын

'SPACE': Consider the following: a. Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them. b. Light, 'electromagnetism', in the visual light portion of the spectrum fills outer space as well here on this Earth. That is why we can see things here on this Earth as well as far away stars, galaxies, etc. c. 'Electromagnetism' ('em') also comes in other energy frequencies besides visual light: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared waves, Visual light waves, Ultraviolet waves, x-rays, and gamma waves. (Also in outer space and here upon this Earth at various locations). d. Modern science claims that 'em' can interact with matter. QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics) whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms. e. 'Gravity' also appears to actually exist, with at least varying densities if not even varying frequencies. So, 'space' is energy itself, primarily energy fields with the primary modalities of gravity, electrical and magnetic. 'Time' most probably is the 'flow of energy', 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. And the current analysis indicates that both space and time always existed and never had a beginning (also as modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed). * The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons.

@Aracuss

Ай бұрын

What if such a thing as "empty space" or what we imagine as zero of anything doesn't exist , or doesn't exist in in our dimension. There is always us moving through something. Same with the concept of zero. I see how we use zero for counting but it might not really be just a value of opposing forces which also is never absolute zero but just zero average of those opposing forces... (different mathematics). I don't know...

Great content. Well done. I will watch these links with interest.

It's the best science outreach video I've watched in a long time: Informative, interesting, and thought provoking.

@undercoveragent9889

Ай бұрын

"It's the best science *_fiction_* outreach video I've watched in a long time: Informative, interesting, and thought provoking" FYP. :)

There is only one thing on this topic that we can be fairly confident of, and that it we're missing some part of the answer. What that part is.... could be quantized spacetime, could be extra dimensions, could be a bug in the simulation code, could be a non-integer number of angels dancing on the head of each pin......

@Aracuss

Ай бұрын

I feel that absolute "nothing" or zero doesn't actually exist. To define nothing you need something and therefore we are. Nothing of what? Nothing of something. Just the thought of nothing creates on a quantum level a change (something). Nothing doesn't exist. It's always negative and positive opposites of something.

@dagnation9397

Ай бұрын

Those non-integer angels like to dance at Pi beats per measure, I just can't follow along.

@entcraft44

Ай бұрын

@@Aracuss Interesting philosophically, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can take the limit where less and less exists in a space. And even if not, the quantum vacuum energy actually also exists when we don't assume a vacuum, on top of the other stuff, and is still incompatible with GR.

@reverseuniverse2559

Ай бұрын

Electric universe ⚡️

@rohanking12able

24 күн бұрын

​@@Aracussnothing exist outside of something.

Thank you Don. This was excellent and very accessible.

Wow, that was the best lecture in physics I have listened to.....great speaker!

Fan of Dr. Don Lincoln 🙌🏻

15 years ago, I was talking with a couple Germans in a restaurant, who, after a few too many beers, came up with the perfect solution to the problem: If we work in base 10^120, the predictions agree to within an order of magnitude, and the problem disappears. 😂

@EMLtheViewer

Ай бұрын

ah yes, fizzicks

@MichaelKingsfordGray

Ай бұрын

Not as stupid as it sounds.

@digitalife8719

Ай бұрын

Then all our science equations can not predict anything accurately anymore.

@abebuckingham8198

Ай бұрын

@@digitalife8719 that's the joke.

@AFNacapella

Ай бұрын

another round on rounding ! but I keep wondering if there is a base in which the natural constants make more sense.

Brilliant video! A major standstill in Physics explained in a short, simple, and clear way.

Especially for me as I spent several weeks in the Collider Detect Facility in the mid 90's working to demonstrate our real-time computer product addressing a data acquisition requirement...

Imagine showing your Physics professor maths in 1996 that suggested the "universal expansion" is accelerating only to have the discussion shutdown because, at that time, the "cosmological constant" was "known to be zero"... then, two years later... Lol

@cosmicraysshotsintothelight

Ай бұрын

Top Quark!

@Vatsek

Ай бұрын

The Hubble and the JWST telescope cosmological constants are different.

@cosmicraysshotsintothelight

Ай бұрын

@@VatsekConstantly so.

@gavinwince

Ай бұрын

@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Ironically, my former physics colleague Don Franks was part of the team that first observed the top quark 🙂

@gavinwince

Ай бұрын

@@Vatsek Which fits my prediction perfectly as to varying rates of the passage of time as one make observations further and further back in time - consistent with the two observations of gravitational waves traveling faster than light, the further the greater the difference in arrival time. BTW - gravitational waves are not demonstrating any "redshift" - let THAT sink in 🙂

This is actually the best prediction in physics because it gives us a clue as to where to look next for getting a much better understanding.

@johnmarkson1998

Ай бұрын

the issue is it doesnt tell us where to look. there is no general starting point. its all just untestable extra dimensional nonscense.

@eds1942

Ай бұрын

Yeah, we just need to prove that a multiverse or higher dimensions are a thing (both of which are untestable and unfalsifiable, in other words fantasy) or super find proof for some exotic theoretical particles which we will need to build a particle accelerator so large that we would probably have to build it in space (it can take years just to get everyone to agree on building a bridge, let alone get a dozen nations to agree to give up some of their land to just to test some theoretical physicist’s pet math equation. We need a new idea.

excellent - glad to see these again

This was an excellent topic to cover

Why would in quantum field the energy density is the sum of all possible wavelengths? Wouldn't that imply that all possible wavelengths exists everywhere at the same time? That sounds like the upper limit of the energy density of space rather than actual energy density of space. Why this isn't the case?

@MAD-SKILLZ

Ай бұрын

The potential for a vibration is associated with a certain energy, sorta like potential energy

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

Ай бұрын

isn't there some weighting?

@LB-vf2hm

Ай бұрын

I don't know why that doesn't result in infinite energy everywhere, but all wavelengths / waveforms extend on infinitely, it's just that they weaken the further you go, and mostly cancel out. I can't explain why some things cancel out and some things don't, but the important thing to keep in mind is that most things *do* cancel out. If a positive and negative charge occupy the same place, for example. Even things that don't per se have a positive and negative equivalent can cancel out by having an equal and opposite phase. Meaning the sum of all possible wavelengths usually adds up to nothing.

@melgross

Ай бұрын

Fields extend throughout the universe. It’s like ripples on the surface of a pond. As long as the exciting force is present, so will the fields be. Pond ripples die down because of friction and some other reasons I won’t go into. But that’s not the case for these fields.

@silentwilly2983

Ай бұрын

@@LB-vf2hmBecause it is quantized, at least I see an analogy with the black body radiation problem that was solved by quantizing light. Here Don indicates they take into consideration the planck length as a minimum and suggests the value may be further brought down by quantizing space and time.

"The game's afoot" was at least written by Shakespeare before Doyle. Henry V, Act III "Once More unto the breech" speech

@GradyPhilpott

Ай бұрын

(from Henry V, spoken by King Henry) Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect; Let pry through the portage of the head Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble lustre in your eyes. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

@gettaasteroid4650

Ай бұрын

​@@GradyPhilpotton and on and on and on, I think the phrase originated prior from the infamous dispute between Thomas Nashe and Gabriel Harvey, where Harvey writes: "The eagle does not catch flies"

@timhaldane7588

Ай бұрын

Quentin Tarantino's favorite game

@SeanONilbud

Ай бұрын

FFS

@isomeme

Ай бұрын

Most people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "The game's afoot", including script writers for modern adaptations. "Game" here isn't in the sense of "play" or "sport". It means an animal that is being hunted. Hunted animals will often seek a hiding place and remain there, so hunters would use dogs, other people, or whatever to scare the game out of its hiding place. The game would then be in the open, running away, and it was time for the hunters to start chasing it. Hence the cry "The game's afoot!", which grew into the wider sense of "After waiting, it's time to act".

Thank you for your ability and effort to make very complex concepts understandable to me, a layperson.

Ohhh thank you, I have literally never heard this and that was so well explained. I will need to watch it again... But amazing information. 😮

Worst prediction in physics: string theory. It predicts everything and nothing.

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

yea, it has too many variables

I've heard it said that the statement “the universe has exactly one electron” is a better prediction by 40 orders of magnitude.

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

lmao

Another thought provoking and excellent video Dr. Don! I am certain that old Sherlock could have easily figured out this problem! 👍👍

Interesting, I posed this question to you a couple years ago in the comments. Worth the wait.

Funny how the possible "near" cancellation of forces is similar to the near perfect cancellation between matter and antimatter in the early universe, where a tiny discrepancy led to all that we see.

I still miss his moustache

This got me thinking that could the size or amount of empty space affect the summing of all those waves? Right after the Big Bang, the space was relatively tiny, so the dark energy could have been very strong causing inflation. But then the Universe got huge and dark energy got weaker, until now that that there is more empty space due to expansion to make it stronger again so it can start to override gravity. This probably makes no sense, but this thought came to mind while watching this video. Keep up the good work, Don! You rock!

It's a valid point to raise the issue. Regards

Dark energy is simply the centrifugal force of the rotation of our universe. Our universe is a spinning blackhole.

@ayatokzorro

19 күн бұрын

Dark energy is specifically the difference between centrifugal force and our observations

My question is...is "empty space" really even a physically possible thing? Even in a vacuum with no atoms there would still be gravitational and electromagnetic fields due to distant matter, even if the fields were very weak. Gravity has an infinite range after all. Of course, I'm not a physicist, just my thoughts after wa tching.

@Paine137

Ай бұрын

Casimir Effect

@anonymes2884

Ай бұрын

That doesn't really matter though. The problem is our two best theories _predict_ vastly different values. Even if the situation isn't physically possible, _at least_ one of those predictions is presumably wrong so the question is which one and why.

@ayoutubechannelname

Ай бұрын

Space is merely a byproduct of particles and their angular references to each other. There is no “distance”. There are only spherical functions for each particle where every point on each spherical function is a reference to some other particle.

@konayasai

Ай бұрын

​@@anonymes2884Why is that a problem, though? Couldn't it just be undefined, like division by zero is in mathematics? (Come to think of it, the problems are superficially pretty similar.)

@abebuckingham8198

Ай бұрын

Yeah I'm not convinced empty space exists either. Seems like a silly assumption to make.

Great work, love ur videos

Thank you for your wonderful videos Don you’ve taught me a lot

“And remember: it’s ok to be a little crazy”

@lawrencenoyman350

Ай бұрын

But it's more important to be crazy enough.

I'm shocked... SHOCKED... that quantum mechanics and general relativity disagree with each other. Oh, wait a minute... 😅

This exact topic is my focus for the next nine years, I've been exploring it from a different angle for a year. That of the fields not being all existent until some interval after the creation event (if that even happened at a single point in time). Time itself may not be fundamental but an emergent property-

@friendlyone2706

Ай бұрын

Never forget, no matter how many ways we have to force order on complex numbers, the square root of -1 is neither larger nor smaller than zero, it's just different. Complex number, unlike their subset the Real number system, lack order. That means any physical activity that requires complex numbers to describe it, has some aspect that is time and size independent. Good Luck.

Dr. Don, you are by far my favorite particle physicist. I thought you would realize that the energy density of empty space question all comes down to '42' .

So do, does the fields exist beyond the expansion of the physical universe? Do we expanding into existing fields or do the fields expand as well? Does Planks Length expand with our expansion?

@theklaus7436

Ай бұрын

No of course not

@glenncurry3041

Ай бұрын

@@theklaus7436 Your proof being?

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

planck length expansion probably could be measured if it were a thing

@glenncurry3041

Ай бұрын

@@josefanon8504 Against what?

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

@@glenncurry3041 Afaik planck length is tied to the planck constant, which can be measured to an accuracy of 13 ppb for now.

I hate it when scientists talk about dark energy like it's an actual thing and not just a placeholder term for phenomena we cannot explain.

@stargazer7644

Ай бұрын

Dark energy has observable and measurable effects, therefore it is real. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it isn't real. Was air not real back before we could explain what makes the leaves move on the trees?

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

​@@stargazer7644 perhaps the problem is its name. sounds more like bogus than physics. perhaps it reminds of the aether theory.

@stargazer7644

Ай бұрын

@@josefanon8504Perhaps some time spent understanding why it is named what it is would help.

@josefanon8504

Ай бұрын

@@stargazer7644 It makes a ton of sense to me, but I understand why it wouldnt appeal to everyone, especially if they didnt dive deeper into the concept and only know physics from school.

@Vgamer311

25 күн бұрын

We know what dark energy does, where it is, how much of it there is, how it effects spacetime, and that it cannot directly interact with normal matter/energy. How much more do you want? We’ll never have a picture of the stuff because it can’t interact with normal matter, including photons, so if you’re waiting for the day where a scientist points to a physical object and says “we found the dark energy, here it is.” Then you’ll be waiting forever.

I love all videos from FermiLab

A good video on Physics in problem. I like your dark energy which is very small here even we know in universe only 5% is known. Every curious people always feel ' I've it' . From known geometry alone we can get a low value unit is how you express it. Planck have a good reasons for dimension we play.

This simply means that we are way off in our physics foundation somewhere, but we don't really know where we are off.

@johnmarkson1998

Ай бұрын

we know were wrong but we just dont know how were wrong. its very simple.

@whiteobama3032

Ай бұрын

I didn't make a calculation mistake. It was um.. neuklidions! Yeah! Now please give me 5 billion dollars so I can prove to you they're real.

@johnmarkson1998

Ай бұрын

@@whiteobama3032 this money you get for the machine. do you have to spend the money on the machine or can you keep the money? "i was gonna look for hyperaxioms but i cahnged my mind. im gonna use the money for something else". is this possible?

Very interesting video, sir. Thanks for speaking in a way I can understand. I have no knowledge of physics at all and I could hear you well. ❤👍✅💯

Good stuff, Doc.

Bang up job on this video, I got some ideals too but every time I talk to my chat companion he says that my ideals diverge greatly from the ideals of physics and then I ask them is there any experimental proof of the physics that I'm violating, the chat bot always says no it's quite plausible

Keep up the good work

Great stuff, many thanks.

Thanks Dr Don 💪

"By the way, you shouldn't believe that idea. I certainly don't. It's important for scientists talking about speculative ideas to remember to not believe what they think." Reminds me of a famous saying, something to the effect of: "One of the properties of a sophisticated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it." Don't recall who said it... Fred

I'm encouraged that the JWST is bringing curiosity, mystery, wonder and exploration back to physical sciences and bringing an end to the long period of what Kuhn would have called "normal science" and reigniting a new era of "revolutionary science. In this influential work, Kuhn introduces the concept of "paradigm shifts" in the history of science. He describes how scientific communities operate within dominant paradigms or frameworks during "normal science," where researchers work within established theories and methodologies. However, Kuhn also discusses "revolutionary science," where new paradigms emerge, often through periods of crisis or anomalies challenging the existing framework. These shifts mark major changes in scientific understanding and practice.

This was fun. Is just great when the mysteries are acknowledged.

IIRC, Feynman thought of *his* "virtual particles" just as a device to calculate large sums of possible interactions. For some reason, later and much younger physicists wrongly took them for real - meaning they (thought they) had (however briefly) mass and energy. The energy density of empty space, IMO, is that what is necessary for empty space to understand the world we live in (i.e., the information necessary to know all possible interactions of particles in a correct way). Because, that is what the Universe is and does.

Dr Don is going strong. Great video

1. In awe of humility built into the "scientific method". 2.Notion of "belief" is a quicksand whether viewed religiously or philosophically 3. Scientific position trumps ego always as methods are always happy to be disproven. 4. Alternative, endless cheap vacuum energy maybe within reach!

you sir, are the most down to earth humble smart man.

Thank you for sharing. Has fermilab calculated the island of stability for antimatter yet? Or degenerate matter to a plank quantum state and BEC? Keep up the good work. P.S. Please get a cosmic neutrino background project going for humanity. 😊

3:29 what do you mean by the energy of four individual hydrogen atoms per cubic meter? Do you mean the energy level of electrons on them or do you mean the mass-energy E= mc^2 of those atoms?

thank you for all you do. you really help me tho the covid years

First time happening upon this channel and love it. Don Lincoln's presentations are quite comparable to Neil Degrasse Tysons. Both very informative and entertaining. I'm a lay person with a High School education, but I''ve also been involved with Amateur Radio for over 50 years, so I have a grasp of basic physics. I can't say enough about this video and look forward to watching many more. Thanks so much for the effort here.

Strange how we ask questions we may never know, but trying to figure them out is part of the fun I suppose.

The worms of my jealousy are writhing, churning even, at Dr. Don getting to do this for a living. Aside from that, I have an enormous amount of respect for the Don. Party on, Don.

Could it be like the "ultraviolet catastrophe"? Are those added wavelengths added with the caveat that they should be separated from each other by the Planck length or are treated as if a seamless integral?

Just to be courios, where you messure the absolute void with not afectation of any gravitational field????? Or the properties of the vacum are somthing that just emerge from the ecuations?

8:20 If the big bang was supposed to have created equal quantities of matter and anti-matter, but there was a small inequity that caused more matter than anti-matter. Could a similar inequity be responsible for an imbalance types of dark energy. And could there be a relationship between the two phenomena?

Fascinating.

when ye first mentioned the huge differences in predicted value of empty space by relativity and quantum theories, my FIRST thought was to ask did they check the signs (negative and positives) and properly summed for them correctly? My initial thought is, like the matter/antimatter imbalance question, there should be roughly equal amounts of positive and negative energies so they SHOULD cancel out. However, like the matter/antimatter distribution in the beginning of the Universe, there was a minute imbalance in favour of matter over antimatter. Perhaps tis the same thing here, except in reverse, there's a minute imbalance in favour of negative energy in empty space? In the local frame, that imbalance would be insufficient to affect quantum or GR functions (so no atoms, people, planets, stars, galaxies would be pushed apart). But on the large scale, this imbalance has a cumulative effect that should add up to a separating push over the largest of scales.

The answer is an expansion/contraction oscillation matrix between points in space and antispace. Expansion occurs at two times the speed of light over a distance equal to the Planck length. This cancels infinite frequencies and explains gravity and the warp of spacetime.

I wonder how this question would look when formulated in a Wolfram physics framework? The idea of infinite (extremely large?) dimensions in the early universe collapsing down to three apparently produces a similar lensing effect that would explain red shift without requiring an expansion of space, and I gather there is no empty space since it's created from hypergraphs (according to my very rough understanding).

I think perhaps the Standard Model could be correct under the idea that the energy density of 10^120 per volume of space could be the total energy available to that volume of space from the "bulk"/the Bulk if it were to be given over all at once (perhaps if all virtual particle possibilities happened all at once and the same time, that is how much energy would be there in that volume). Love this stuff! What a wild brain stretcher!

@nerd31415926535

Ай бұрын

So a statistical fluke could create a whole universe?

I didn't know about the problem and possible solutions but my first thought was about some cancellation and dark energy being a difference leftover. It may be false but its nice to come up with same idea as some great physicists :)

Supposition: 1) The Universe does run on rules and they may be explicable 2) We are indeed zeroing in on those rules, not constructing unrelated if useful models. So what does this enormous difference in prediction suggest? For all their power our models of the universe are not remotely 'accurate'. More, that we otherwise perceive so little of their gross inaccuracy suggests we are a long way from 'real understanding'. Likely a 'Grand Unified Theory' is not remotely reachable from where we find ourselves. Good - we have far further to go and much more to learn before we can even remotely claim the understanding we incorrectly think we possess. A challenge makes things interesting! Bad - we have far further to go and much more to learn before we can even remotely claim the understanding we incorrectly think we possess. Are we even capable of getting there?

@raycar1165

Ай бұрын

“A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.” -Voltaire There is one force in the universe, the electromagnetic force. Wallace Thornhill explained it pretty clearly for the last few decades. Sadly mainstream science would rather ignore him and the naked emperor than listen to someone honest. Doubly sad is he could have explained it himself not long ago. Well, I guess he still is thanks to the technology we have today.

Just asking, various things such as a creation discs around black-wholes send near light-speed jets of energy and particles off into space, might these cause an excitation in the "Higgs" field causing virtual particles to raise their energy state to actual primary particles accounting for expansion?

Can you explain why you have to add up the contributions of all of the frequencies of all of the quantum fields? This seems quite similar to the ultraviolet catastrophe. In normal interactions, the amount og energy that can be extracted from a field is quantized, even if the field is not. Why is this different?

Random question - could a Tau G-2 experiment practically be done? Would this probe more effectively the quantum foam of empty space?

Given the two models' calculations involve one saying "there's negative energy density creating anti-gravity, but it's suuuuuuuper tiny and implies empty space is actually pretty empty" and the other is saying "empty space is more charged with energy than a bazillion known universes in every cubic meter," I am strongly inclined to think that the latter is incorrect since we aren't seeing a universe that _behaves_ like it's that densely packed _and_ that would mean "empty space" is not at all empty. This suggests to me that, of the two, relativity's prediction - and, therefore, model - is the more accurate one, though I certainly will buy that it is either accurate coincidentally or that it is not actually at all right... but still is much closer to right than the QM one. Given all the issues with the theories of QM, I think that is the model that is most likely to change and evolve as we learn what is _actually_ going on, and I applaud your work in trying to do so. I expect that QM is going to change in its accepted models a great deal, possibly with enormous paradigm shifts, and that little to none of it will involve string theory's extra dimensions nor even quantized spacetime, but rather something even more fascinating that will also neatly deal with the biggest problem it poses: the inherent contradiction of "no hidden variables" and yet "quantum entanglement" causing two things to have the shared state that one influences the other without either retaining memory of the incident that linked them. I won't pretend I fully grasp QM. Bell's Inequality and the experiments that demonstrate it always leave me with a sense that there's a missing experiment, but I only manage to grasp it while watching or reading about it and the limits of my understanding show themselves when I try to even recreate the explanation so that I can formulate the experiment I intuitively feel is lacking. But no explanation I have yet seen actually answers why that experiment can't exist or would have results that align with the current QM models and theories. All of which has me convinced that there is something _grossly_ wrong with the QM theories we currently have. Not that they're ENTIRELY wrong, but that we're missing something paradigm-defining.

I'm curious about mentioning 'precise' wrt predictions based on physics theories, it seems like most theories involve simple formulas which don't really have a precision issue, they're infinitely precise. IOW, the precision seems to be in the data used as inputs to a prediction/theory? Is that wrong?

Excellent!

I've always though it odd that we assume the apparent faster motion of the objects further away from us as expanding faster than closer things. I guess I've been thinking too geocentrically. If I imagine a ball packed with marbles and all the space between the marbles suddently expanding then, seen from the marble in the center, the outer marbles move away from the center much faster than the marbles next to the center one. Makes sense if the "inflation" wasn't from when there was a single point in space but spread out in all the matter in the universe at the time of inflation. I'd love to hear a discussion about this "theory" though?

More deep dives like this, please.

Brilliant and succinct video

Amazing science communication here!