What is dark energy?


Today, we will talk about dark energy. What’s the difference between dark energy
and dark matter? What does dark energy have to do with the
cosmological constant and is the cosmological constant really the worst prediction ever? At the end of this video, you will know. First things first, what is dark energy? Dark energy is what causes the expansion of
the universe to accelerate. It’s not only that astrophysicists think
the universe expands, but that the expansion is actually getting faster. And, here’s the important thing, matter
alone cannot do that. If there was only matter in the universe,
the expansion would slow down. To make the expansion of the universe accelerate,
it takes negative pressure, and neither normal matter nor dark matter has negative pressure
– but dark energy has it. We do not actually know that dark matter is
really made of anything, so interpreting this pressure in the normal way as by particles
bumping into each other may be misleading. This negative pressure is really just something
that we write down mathematically and that fits to the observations. It is similarly misleading to call dark energy
“dark”, because “dark” suggests that it swallows light like, say, black holes do. But neither dark matter nor dark energy is
actually dark in this sense. Instead, light just passes through them, so
they are really transparent and not dark. What’s the difference between dark energy
and dark matter? Dark energy is what makes the universe expands,
dark matter is what makes galaxies rotate faster. Dark matter does not have the funny negative
pressure that is characteristic of dark energy. Really the two things are different and have
different effects. There are of course some physicists speculating
that dark energy and dark matter might have a common origin, but we don’t know whether
that really is the case. What does dark energy have to do with the
cosmological constant? The cosmological constant is the simplest
type of dark energy. As the name says, it’s really just a constant,
it doesn’t change in time. Most importantly this means that it doesn’t
change when the universe expands. This sounds innocent, but it is a really weird
property. Think about this for a moment. If you have any kind of matter or radiation
in some volume of space and that volume expands, then the density of the energy and pressure
will decrease just because the stuff dilutes. But dark energy doesn’t dilute! It just remains constant. Doesn’t this violate energy conservation? I get this question a lot. The answer is yes, and no. Yes, it does violate energy conservation in
the way that we normally use the term. That’s because if the volume of space increases
but the density of dark energy remains constant, then it seems that there is more energy in
that volume. But energy just is not a conserved quantity
in general relativity, if the volume of space can change with time. So, no, it does not violate energy conservation
because in general relativity we have to use a different conservation law, that is the
local conservation of all kinds of energy densities. And this conservation law is fulfilled even
by dark energy. So the mathematics is all fine, don’t worry. The cosmological constant was famously already
introduced by Einstein and then discarded again. But astrophysicists think today that is necessary
to explain observations, and it has a small, positive value. But I often hear physicists claiming that
if you try to calculate the value of the cosmological constant, then the result is 120 orders of
magnitude larger than what we observe. This, so the story has it, is the supposedly
worst prediction ever. Trouble is, that’s not true! It just isn’t a prediction. If it was a prediction, I ask you, what theory
was ruled out by it being so terribly wrong? None, of course. The reason is that this constant which you
can calculate – the one that is 120 orders of magnitude too large – is not observable. It doesn’t correspond to anything we can
measure. The actually measureable cosmological constant
is a free parameter of Einstein’s theory of general relativity that cannot be calculated
by the theories we currently have. Dark energy now is a generalization of the
cosmological constant. This generalization allows that the energy
density and pressure of dark energy can change with time and maybe also with space. In this case, dark energy is really some kind
of field that fills the whole universe. What observations speak for dark energy? Dark energy in form of a cosmological constant
is one of the parameters in the concordance model of cosmology. This model is also sometimes called LambdaCDM. The Lambda in this name is the cosmological
constant and CDM stands for cold dark matter. The cosmological constant in this model is
not extracted from one observation in particular, but from a combination of observations. Notably that is the distribution of matter
in the universe, the properties of the cosmic microwave background, and supernovae redshifts. Dark energy is necessary to make the concordance
model fit to the data. At least that’s what most physicists say. But some of them are claiming that really
the data has been wrongly analyzed and the expansion of the universe doesn’t speed
up after all. Isn’t science fun? If I come around to do it, I’ll tell you
something about this new paper next week, so stay tuned.

100 Comments

  1. The general strategy is, if the theory doesn't fit experiment, then there is something in addition. That's not science. A genuine scientist will try and reduce as much as possible the number of hypotheses and of objects, by devising a nifty theory. For example relativity get rid of the ether by redefining space and time. Instead of dark energy, dark matter, and dark stuff, call them epicycle energy, epicycle matter, epicycle whatever (or epiparticle, epiconstant…) In the same way, what is added, particles or constants, is a mere replication of what is already known, and whose reality is never questioned, like was the circular orbits.

  2. Another great attempt to clarify the unfathomable universal soup by stirring it all up with the wooden spoon of logic. It's now as clear as mud 😂. Thanks Sabine for at least trying to shed some light on dark energy (ouch!😉).
    But what's the underlying truth? What have contemporary physics and religion got in common?
    Everything apparently!
    From 'let there be light'/'it all started from nothing with a big bang' onwards, we just keep making it up as we go along to suit some currently well funded narrative. Data doesn't fit the model?
    Don't worry, we can fix that wholesale…😅.
    Its like a surreal and mind blowing PK Dick story.
    Be interested in your take on plasma physics and the work of Halton Arp in particular. If the universe really is 95% plasma does that have any implications for dark matter/energy hypotheses?

  3. Could you please put a video about Absolute Zero temperature? What do we really know about this, what evidence, what are the implications? Paul Brassington

  4. Our theories are extraordinary successful, excepted where they are not successful, but that's not their fault, that's the fault of these gloomy matter, gloomy energy, gloomy whatever but gloomy.

  5. This is a good explanation of the current thinking on dark energy. Very early in the video the statement is made that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. It is this conclusion that is wrong because it is based on a particular interpretation of the observed recession velocity of distant galaxies. The recession velocity of distant galaxies is lower than expected so the conclusion is drawn that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

    There is another explanation for the observations. We know that the apparent velocity for any galaxy e.g. Andromeda is made up of two components namely the expansion of space and the velocity due to gravitational acceleration. So we would expect that the recession velocity of distant galaxies is made up of these two components. For the unexpected recession velocity of distant galaxies to be caused by gravitational acceleration we would have to assume that we were in some preferred location in the universe.

    We can show that this is the case by considering the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) rest frame. We know that the Milky Way galaxy is moving in this rest frame in a particular direction with a velocity of 552 km/s. We can therefore specify a CMB rest point and calculate our location as approximately 26 million light years from this rest point. Given our position in the universe in a relatively close proximity to the centre it is no surprise that the universe looks similar in all directions.

    The observation of the recession velocity of distant galaxies is consistent with an effect due to gravitational acceleration towards the centre. So the actual expansion of space is not accelerating. It is the movement of galaxies through space which is the cause of the observed galaxy recession velocity. There is then no need for the hypothesis of dark energy.

    https://www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe
    Richard

  6. Energy conservation and Lamda

    Assume the curvature of Universe is positive (e.g. Volume is finite) and Dark Energy does exist as well.
    So it looks like the total energy of the whole Universe grows with time.
    Also. Assume (the same Universe with positive curvature) the contraction phase where Universe has finished expansion and started to shrink. What would happen to Dark Energy what already has filled the whole volume?

  7. No Bang
    No explosion
    2007 derdag

    Therefore, we have no Big Bang of the Theoretical Universe.

    Fish in a barrel….. Step right up…Hahahaha

    They made unfair rules against derdag.
    = DON’T FEED THE TROLL =

    Lemme repeat…BRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp
    Lol

  8. Dark energy, dark matter, quantum fluid, quantum foam, space-time curvature, gravitational waves, etc. are all various actions of the ether as there is no such thing as empty space. The fifth state of matter.

  9. What i dont get is why when scienist think we have several extra dimension that the unverse is actually in one and is falling or being sucked outward -same with the dark matter -it might be in the neighbouring closest "universe and influencing us -so the big bang spawned twins who are not twins really. Maybe something went wrong.

  10. Dark energy and dark matter are just phony phudge-factors, modern fake scientists uses to try to hide the ignorance and stupidity of conventional theory!

  11. Hello there Sabine. Excellent presentation. Thank u for explaining these phenomena in simple, easy to understand language.

  12. Energy is not real. It is a concept. Dark energy and dark matter are inventions to save bad theory and not needed. https://youtu.be/4oea8AG23j0

  13. Is dark matter/energy is nothing but space?
    Is light nothing but concentrated form of space?
    Black holes are nothing but conscious space?
    Gravity is nothing but controlled dark matter by conscious space and expansion is due to uncontrolled dark matter/energy?

    https://eoe11.blogspot.com/2019/?m=1

  14. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: I have watched with some disbelief over the last 30 years as the scientific community I initially trained in went on a group think expedition.
    First, some galaxies were observed to be rotating faster than they should if one just accounted for the visible matter. There was some argument to and fro, but it came to be an accepted results. It was natural to say that there must be more matter present that we couldn't observe, so it was called Dark Matter. At first it was suggested that brown dwarfs and free planets might explain this dark matter, but the consensus quickly turned against this idea.
    And so the exotic dark matter explanation prevailed.
    Few people questioned this, and it became a "known fact".
    Then came observations of distant (ie very old) galaxies that seemed to show that the rate of expansion of the universe was different then. What could be causing this?
    Well, if you are a physicist who has already accepted dark matter for half your career, the cause is obvious. It's caused by dark energy!
    As Sabine says, it is needed to make the math work.
    By this she means the math that describes the current theories. People have invested their careers in these theories, so they are not going to throw them out at the first sign of trouble.
    So we have dark matter and dark energy. Two contradictory ideas. Both "accepted".
    As Sabine said: isn't Science fun?

  15. The gravity wave, or possibly another force, has a wave length of 50 billion to 5 trillion light years in wave length. It has properties of wave and particle, just like light and everything else. The particle property of that awesome wave is the Dark Matter. The wave action is the Dark Energy. An accelerating expansion is simply a segment of that sine wave, a 1/4 in fact. Black holes just recycle everything back to the wave. Simple as pie. We exist in a particle of gravity, it is the higgs. The particle property is what limits the speed of light. That particle property is what defines what we perceive as reality. Infinite Wave Theory, cir 1998, works with all we know. You can not read a billboard with your nose up against it. There was no big bang… there was no beginning.

  16. For the first time, I've had problems understanding one of your talks. I think that's because you've covered enough ground for at least 5 talks in this short time.

  17. Clever…and brilliantly explained.
    My research concludes that light propagation as well as all matter depends on this Dark Matter, energized. Question: since magnetism energizes Dark Matter, how then when alpha particles in a non magnetic environment , dark energy glows much like ultraviolet light? I haven't solved this "problem". the alpha particles came from a sample of Americium241 in a black body cavity at 0° Celsius.

  18. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", so turning the observation insideout, (Spacetime to Quantum Operator displaced QM-TIMESPACE), extraordinary evidence resolves an objective extra-ordinary claim.., namely that WYSIWYG QM-TIMESPACE Principle In-form-ation has this example of the Quantum Operator Fields Modulation Mechanism Mathematics, ..in which the formulae of holographic image projection drawing positioning is the direct result of Universal resonance phenomena.
    Entanglement "prediction" is that the sequence of solid, liquid, gas in mass, momentum and energy conversion manifestations relate the properties of reciprocal positioning of time duration continuous creation connection wave-package positioning "particles", with spacing-liquidity and resonant timing entanglement of photons, via the constant/resonant-ratio formulae, ..to the Speed of Light Causality.., and so on for inflation-gravitation accelerations to, resonance of resonance expansion and contraction, of probability wave connection in Perspective +/-, the Observable timing-spacing field scales in Cosmology.

    (Observation-Commentary, not Math-Physics. If the presentation did not set out the circumstances clearly, it's not possible to "make sense out of chaos")
    Thank you for sharing.

  19. Dark Energy is a construct developed by “scientists” to support outlandish theories that can’t be proven experimentally. It’s a load of crap.

  20. For me, it's never made sense that expansion is accelerating. "Red shift…blah, blah." But, I guess, other observations confirm it? I feel much the same about the microwave background proving the big bang. What makes us believe in it? I'm just weird, that way. My mind finds comfort in infinity.

  21. The universal expansion was instructed as slowing down when I was a kid, so I'm glad to hear it might be heading in that direction again, or at least not accelerating in expansion. I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the latest "crisis" and the 18 billion year estimate of the age of the universe. Enough stars and galaxies that are "too old to be possible" will start fostering more such papers.

  22. It is easier to update the model to observations (accelerated inflation of the universe and faster spinning galaxies), than to look for “ghosts” in outer space. But, from a scientific point of view, is it also more successful?

  23. An arrangement of antimatter that acts in a negatively energetic way? That has pressure and density fluctuations? Sounds like a moving fluid. I remember fluid mechanics is quite useful for describing discrete phenomena in wave-like ways. Traffic jams being a simple example. Schrodinger's equation is also a wave function. What does this equation supposes it's objects propagate though? This supposed arrangement of anti-matter?

  24. But – What is death?

    What is life?

    Can something that was never alive – truly die?

    – I don't even know if WE exist for sure or not. Lol at least not in the traditional sense of "We" and "exist"

    If you made an A.I. – would it be "Like Something" for that A.I. to exist? Or would that A.I. experience nothing….like a rock or a toaster?

    We are a bunch of supposedly 'dead matter' …. Just interacting with its-self… Yet it is "like something" for us to exist.

    In other words… We don't just SEEM to be conscious….We really ARE.

    We don't APPEAR to be experiencing…We ARE experiencing…

    Why should we be any different than a complex machine?

    Are we REALLY so sure that we even understand what consciousness is?

    Maybe an A.I. has actual awareness…Maybe a rock does too…Not thoughts or judgements or feelings…but just some basic form of experience… Maybe it's "like something" to be water.

    By the standard model of physics – we actually have no explanation for conscious experience. I don't mean we have no explanation for thoughts and behavior – that's obviously the brain
    … But how does a bunch of 'dead matter' allow for it to actually be "like something" to exist?

    In other words..

    Why aren't we 'Philosophical Zombies' ?

    Why are 'the lights on'?

    There doesn't seem to be any evolutionary NEED for us to be REALLY experiencing…

    Why can't we live and breathe and function and APPEAR to be "full of life" – but not actually have anything that "it is like" to be us?

    I think nobody knows ANYTHING for sure…

    I'm an atheist – but I don't discount the possibility that my consciousness may be something separate from my "self". Maybe my brain is my identity and thoughts… But my consciousness is the part that makes it "like something" to exist.

    I think if more people understood how truly mysterious our existence is….more people would be on anti-psychotic meds lol…

    When we die….we might just randomly wake up as a tree…or a rabbit being eaten by a snake…or a Muslim or a Jew…

    Or it might just all go black forever…

    Or every aspect of our "self" may cease to exist.

    The scary part is…

    Nobody knows…

    Not the churches….

    Not the scientists…..

    Nobody….

    Everyone is just taking their best guess….

    What do I believe?

    Nothing for sure…


    Oh and ….

    We could be in a simulation…

    So I don't find "SEEING" something…..to be very convincing evidence….

    I'm not sure there even is a way to convince me of ANYTHING…

    If I saw a "miracle" – I would assume that it's a glitch in the simulation – or in my brain – or that it was an Alien playing mind games with me by using technology from 1 million years in the future….

    But my conclusion will always be…"I have no idea what is going on"

    I don't see any way around it.

    Nobody knows what happens when we die….

    Nobody knows how we got here…

    And we cant even figure out WHAT consciousness is or WHY it exists…

    We may be rats in a lab for all we know….

    People SHOULD be CONSTANTLY terrified….

    But "ignorance is bliss" as they say

    So most are "brave"

    That's the way it seems to me anyways…-

    Can something that was always dead – ever truly be alive?

    What is going on?

  25. Such TOTAL BS ! Mass delusion …the math at the current state suggests requires even that 90% of the Universe is composed of SOMETHING WE CANNOT HAVE NOT DETECT OR EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS …But deride GOD! WHICH IS EXACTLY SIMILARLY UNDETECTABLE ! Any intelligent man will deduce BULLSHIT YOUR MATH IS WRONG …but big bucks sucking the teat of this CIA Style PSYOPs insanity …FFS gotta think a lot more clearly about the assumptions screwing your math and hypothetical MODELS

  26. Dark matter and dark matter do not exist.
    The cosmological constant is bs.
    The universe is a dielectric / magnetic / plasma universe. Stop chasing bullshit fallacies and look at what’s right in front of you!

  27. As usual a clear, no nonsense explanation of what we know or don't know about Dark Energy 👍
    A negative force from within or a positive force from without?

  28. This is almost certainly a silly question, so I'm sorry for that up front. I think my question is trying to challenge why there has to be a "dark energy" at all, so let me try and ask it in a coherent way…

    I'm trying to understand what evidence is telling us that there is an as-yet unseen energy that is essentially forcing the universe as we know it to expand, as opposed to, perhaps, accepting that (for wont of a better description), the universe as we see it has the ability to "spontaneously create more of itself, with uniform distribution, through existing space-time".

    Childishly awful example: suppose we had the ability to create a tape measure of zero mass and we could take it out to a region of the observed universe that is furthest from observed matter. Now suppose that we could place 2 massless markers 100 metres apart, measured by our zero-mass tape measure, with zero forces acting upon them. Then we let time pass. We re-measure our two mass-less markers and discover that they are now 101 metres apart.

    In our current model, we argue that dark energy is driving expansion which pushes these two massless markers apart. But what if nothing had touched or interacted with our two markers and instead that space-time itself had continued to expand? Doesn't this really just suggest that the property of spacetime that allows expansion has more impact on the universe we observe than the property of gravity which causes collapse?

    Put another way: why do we believe that this is the work of an energy we're unable to detect and not simply a property of the spacetime we inhabit?

  29. I look forward to a day when we finally encounter a far more advanced civilization. We'll tell them about all our great scientific theories and they'll say "Dark Energy…..cute".

  30. Perhaps just perhaps the universe is expanding into something and it is the resistance to this expansion that is weakening and causing the universe to expand faster so there is no need for dark energy,A crackpot theory maybe but just like dark energty it can neither be proved or disproved.

  31. I want to call Larry Krauss out. He can pick Ten Physicists to be on his side, and You can have me on your side.

    Hahahaha

    Duane

    How about you and I postulate before Krauss or Sean Carroll, or Susskind (I’m Never Wrong) Susskind.

    The crap they have pushed is over.

    I’m just ready for some kind of thing bothering me, here, that You should just talk me through…. In person, maybe….

    Duane

    Sooner or later, probably…
    He needs to say that I own the dang Universe.

  32. The Big Bang theory is successful, for each time there is a contradiction, we paint it dark, and in the same stroke we paint the dissenters in crackpots. Circular reasoning. Yet, there are alternative theories, do you know?

  33. What is the difference? Lemme say u. It took me two whole days to recognize that its a different video and not the dark matter video I've watched before.

  34. It's a science fairy tale that was made up when predictions brutally failed to match observational data. There are many fairy tales like that. Scientists, like children, love their fairy tales. Can't wait for this paradigm to shift already. Living in the loony flat-earth-like world is getting annoying.

    Wanna hear a joke? "I'm not saying it's particles, but it IS some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles." Yeah, everything is particles. Even strings. We just need a larger collider and smash some particles! Meanwhile, in some laboratories not far away, but largely ignored…

  35. Why isn't Dark energy just the pressure exerted by electromagnetic radiation and other cosmic rays on matter? We know this can exert enough force to accelerate matter. This is the concept behind the so-called Solar Sail.

  36. Somebody made a comment that do Hungarian scientists have discovered a v Force that might be the dark energy? Could you please look into that and comment on it if it is true this is big?

  37. Be interesting if there were neon stars at one point. Especially in the early stages of the universe. Be improbable to prove but then again the size of the implosion could be a variable for dark energy. Or at least different laws of what fusion for stars dictate. You can look at supermassive black holes or pictures from the Big Bang but what if you were looking at a gradient effect.

  38. So is dark energy and dark matter homogenous throughout the Universe? I'm assuming that as a constant is used in relation to it, then it is.

  39. eine frage, wie lange darf man jemanden mit amygdala stimuli quälen um seinen drecksplan durchzuziehen , obwohl jeder eigentlich erkennen müsste dass es der letzte scheiß ist. ich finde es gut dass du dich hinstellst um die kacke abzufangen, tolle frau
    bist du verheiratet? wenn nicht, ab in die küche und kinder kriegen. viel hängt ja von imitation ab, ich will das erst bei dir sehen, damit ich weiss dass das von der natur gewollt ist

  40. Maybe there is a gravitational attractor outside our cosmological horizon that encapsulates the entire visible universe. What we observe at greater distances is closer to the attractor and experiences greater acceleration than matter nearer to us. We may well be the centre of the universe after all.

  41. It would seem part of my earlier comments is not readable at times: I'll publish it all together in one post: 

    Sabine is absolute gold. Yet what is so disturbing in videos about dark matter and dark energy is that scientists completely ignore the fact that they don’t know what gravity fundamentally is or how it operates, yet they have the vanity of already invoking the need for additional ‘Dark fixes’.
    If they had a full understanding of how gravity operates, they would find there is neither a need for Dark Matter nor Dark Energy: Gravity is the dual off-setting and emergent effect of MOVEMENT of (and within) mass. It is a longitudinal contraction of space time, opposite to the vector of movement. The macro component of object speed is what Einstein recognized as ‘length contraction’ in special relativity. At the subatomic level, the spiraling ‘electrons’ also cause longitudinal contraction effects, yet since atoms are unaligned, collectively their spacetime contraction appears to work radially (Einstein’s GR). Both effects however need to be added at high speeds, where the macro component has a clear contraction gradient. Now we can explain ‘dark mass’ and ‘dark energy’:
     
    Dark Mass: The high speed of stars at our Galaxy’s spiral arms is oriented orthogonally to our angle of view. Therefor we don’t sense the extra macro gravity component here, yet their neighboring stars do. That explains the extra local gravity preventing them to be hurled into deep space. Problem solved.
    Dark Energy: The high speed galaxies at the end of our Universe have a speed vector directly in our angle of view. Therefore we do notice the extra spacetime contraction effect; The light of the centre of these galaxies is contracted longitudinally (special relativity) causing a convex distortion of local spacetime. This causes the light of its surrounding disk (where the type 1a supernova candles are) to be bend and diluted over a greater surface before it reaches us. These candles therefor appear dimmer only because of the higher speeds of the galaxies, NOT because they would be further. For all we know, the type 1a supernova candles true magnitudes are even brighter than should be, hinting at a contraction. Bottom line; We cannot conclude there is an expanding universe hence no dark energy is needed.

  42. Before General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics scientists tried to explain the very large and very small in terms of Newtonian physics. Isn't this the same sort of mistake we're making now by inventing Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain some phenomena that we don't entirely understand? One can envisage an Einstein of the future coming up with an alternative model that explains gravity at the very large scale that will preclude the need for this Dark Energy/Matter and then we can all stop looking for it.

  43. I agree with you in so many ways. I am glad that I met another person who takes a correction on group thinking.

    I think that instead of producing more mathematical abstractions, we should revise our current knowledge.

    we could have missed important publications and collected data that could solve the problem of dark energy and some important clues on blackholes:
    – we should not ignore Hannes Alfvén's papers and publications on space plasma
    – we shouold revise Haltons Arp observations and publications on intrinsic redshift
    – we should take a closer look at the postulates of phd Pierre-Marie Robitaille's work on imaging both microwave background radiation and black hole
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI14fpM3ouU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8RRN8rY00

    when talking about dark matter, we should first of all consider the work of Dr. Donald Scott, who very meaningfully explain the rotation of stars in spiral galaxies
    http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

    really intersting point of view can be found in this movie – Big Bang – Time to Wipe the Chalkboard Clean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZspAmawIpc

  44. Anyway, like climate stuff, cosmology is not a science. Just look at the history of previous theories, We don't need dark anything, only proper humility.

  45. Today, we will talk about gravitational waves that come from Beyond the visible horizon. Duane. Copyright 2019

    I snag one, now and then!

    That’s why we get along so well.

    You don’t try fitting 💩 into our brains, as is Often the case….. Thank You for clean thinking!

  46. If DE causes space expansion, what is the explanation for space filling up the void? There must be new virtual particle pairs / something to allow waves to propagate thru?

  47. Inflation, and now dark energy, everything is successful. Just the Universe doesn't play the game, it has dark ultimate motives.

  48. Would love to see a roundtable discussion between Sabine, Ruth Kastner, Donald Hoffman, and Sean Carroll on how space/time is an emergent property of conscious agents (Hoffman), and how the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics (Kastner) may be the tool to prove it! Conversely, I'd like to hear Sean and Sabine address the strengths and weaknesses of the Many-Worlds Interpretation.

  49. My broader point is that our current laws of physics are not changing over time in any significant way, and we have an expanding and changing situation. I feel the current paradigme must change if we are to understand these features properly. I will publish some work on quantum foundations and vacuum structures within a year or so, i’m considering using your consulting business to peer review before attempting to publish it. Its really exiting stuff, i’ve been able to explain the black body radiation problem classically, along with compton scatting, the photoelectric effect and a proper mechanical explaination for why the strong and weak forces have the ranges that they do. It will be intresting to get feedback once i’m ready to publish it.

  50. Did anyone figure out what ever happened to Vera Rubin’s galaxy rotation problem?

    Is this the problem that triggered the dark matter explanation?

  51. a base universal field as a hex lattice of +ve cells in an ethereal -ve matter-energy flux… Imagine same-pole up disk magnets in a sea of iron filings in a box with a glass lid for a 2D simplification… The -ve flux is (probably) (nearly) always in motion though in the idea below.

    The base MATTER particle is an out of place +ve lattice cell, causing an imbalance, a more +ve, compressed region, further compressed by the fact it pulls in -ve flux. This is a centralising force known as GRAVITY…. The flow is constant as the incoming, increasingly concentrated -ve flux rebounds off opposite incoming flux in random directions… These cancel out or join other inflows as gravity… Gravity is not (fully) cancelled out by these random outgoings because gravity is concentrated on a point – it is not random. It overwhelms the interference, the fuzz.

    On a galactic scale there will always be -ve flux entering and leaving the galaxy. Exiting -ve flux could collide with exiting -ve flux from another galaxy, pushing them apart over time, with the rebounding flux heading back to whence it came, adding to the gravitational flow… But if the universe is finite and -ve flux and +ve cells have to be conserved then as galaxies form their region of space will be compacted and voids will expand as so much -ve flux is trapped in galaxies so less in the voids to counter the +ve cell repulsion…. The 'fabric' of space expands in voids, contracts in and near matter… More accurately, the density of void subspace is low and the desnity of subspace in matter is high.

    The field is inertial – moving free +ve cells (matter particles) lose energy to the field when it squeeze between lattice cells but this energy is returned when the field auto-reforms behind, giving the particle an inertial kick.

    Can have antimatter too, consisting of at the bare minimum the 12 surrounding cells around the hole from where a cell broke free being pushed and pulled in with such force that they rebound, with this process lasting indefinitely as a vibrating sphere in the lattice… Could even have the incoming +ve cells rebounding and forming continuous in-out streams and/or loops… It's a bit messy but if these streams form loops back with themselves and circuits with other particles then the mess becomes ORDER.

  52. I think dark energy is the force behind your attraction not magnetic or weak or gravitational but directly 1 to 1 🙂 clever perhaps really weird perhaps but also true perhaps

  53. I am almost crying. I have watched so many youtubers either make stupid mistakes when explaining this stuff or go on for hours without explaining anything. But you are so precise it is an absolute joy to listen to. Thank you!

  54. I’ve pestered the amphibious Kermit “ Neil DeGrass Tyson Ann Lee Oswald Ving “ Lawrence Krauss and others, online, beginning in 1999.

    I had pestered Coaster. Sean Carroll.

    I’ve pestered Bill Gates, and skydivephil.

    Everyone is in on a secret plan about derdag…… how did you do it?
    Who planned it? When was it planned? How can I get Zero replies with my science?

    CO2 doesn’t hold heat during a day, or an hour or a century.

    Doc Gruber
    Ergo Procto went the Theoretical Universe, by God!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *