"It's not just because they like the word dark..." I had a Professor of GR who consistently called four(-dimensional)-vectors, in fact, four-anything, "tetra-vectors" (tetra-anything), which is legit as "tetra" means "four", but You cannot get away form the fact that "tetro" in Italian means "dark", as in horror-like dark, and You start to get the suspicion that he was subtly leading us to the dark side... Turns out theoretical physicists sometimes are not only nerdy, they can also be nerdy Sith lords, which explains a lot!
@radadadadee
7 ай бұрын
like the english word "tetric"
@Nightzo
7 ай бұрын
Explains why Tetris is anxiety inducing when the blocks start piling up
@Kelnx
7 ай бұрын
Theoretical physicists ARE the most likely people to open some gate to Hell someday, so that tracks.
@esecallum
7 ай бұрын
Oh, dark matter, the holy grail of modern astronomy! The elusive substance that only exists in theories and equations, yet manages to explain everything we don't understand. It's like the Swiss Army knife of cosmology - whenever there's a gap in our knowledge, just whip out the dark matter card, and voilà, problem solved! Now, I must admit, there's something charming about watching astronomers cling to their beloved dark matter like a toddler clutching their security blanket. Whenever something doesn't quite add up in the universe, they chant the sacred mantra: "Dark matter did it!" It's almost impressive how they've turned a lack of evidence into an entire belief system. Move over ancient religions; we've got a new faith in town! Imagine being an astronomer with an unexpected observation. Instead of scratching your head and pursuing alternative explanations, why not just yell "Hallelujah, it's dark matter!" and call it a day? Who needs empirical evidence when you have faith, right? The beauty of dark matter is that it's an all-purpose excuse for any conundrum - from the rotation of galaxies to the distribution of cosmic structures. What a convenient catch-all! It's astounding how this intangible substance, which allegedly makes up around 85% of the universe (according to devout believers), has yet to be directly observed. But, no need to worry, because dark matter is the dark knight of physics - it lurks in the shadows, refusing to reveal itself to mere mortals. It's almost as if dark matter enjoys playing hide-and-seek with scientists, giggling behind its metaphysical veil while astronomers scramble to explain its mysterious behavior. I must commend these astronomers for their relentless devotion. They won't rest until every tiny inconsistency in our understanding is sanctified by dark matter's divine touch. It's as if they've sworn a sacred oath to defend the faith against any heretics who dare to question its validity. The dark matter zealots will stand firm, clutching their equations like holy scriptures, unwilling to accept that perhaps, just maybe, they're barking up the wrong celestial tree. I can picture them huddled in their observatories, chanting their hymns of equations and models, trying to convert every cosmic mystery into a testament of dark matter's divine influence. The faithful fervently preach the gospel of dark matter, and woe betide anyone who dares challenge their beliefs. They've become so dogmatic that questioning the existence of dark matter is akin to cosmic heresy, punishable by excommunication from the hallowed halls of mainstream astrophysics. In the end, dark matter has become the comforting bedtime story astronomers tell themselves to lull their minds into peaceful slumber. It serves as a convenient explanation for the unknown, sparing them from confronting the uncomfortable reality that perhaps the universe is more complex and enigmatic than they'd like to believe. So, let us raise our telescopes to the dark matter disciples, the steadfast defenders of the invisible and the masters of the mysterious. May their faith continue to shine like an undetectable halo, guiding them through the darkness of ignorance. And may we, mere mortals, continue to ponder the absurdity of it all, wondering if dark matter is the ultimate cosmic truth or simply the greatest celestial myth ever conceived. Amen.
@charlesbrightman4237
7 ай бұрын
@@esecallum a. Some people still have to be able to justify the singular big bang theory so as to still be able to justify God's existence. b. Some people still have to be able to justify dark energy and/or dark matter so as to still have a job looking for dark energy and/or dark matter. c. Some people still have to justify a certain position in physics because to do otherwise would mean they wasted time and money in college learning stuff that was wrong.
@Alexadria205
7 ай бұрын
I think you should have mentioned that the energy density of the vacuum remains constant as the universe expands, which then leads to the conclusion that energy is not conserved in the whole universe.
@Jack_Parsons-666
7 ай бұрын
Does it remain constant though? How do we compare it to what it was 10 billion years ago?
@anywallsocket
7 ай бұрын
since we don't understand QM+GR and all this dark stuff, it's more honest to say "we lack a model in which energy is conserved" than it is to say "energy is not conserved".
@DrDeuteron
7 ай бұрын
I think dark energy remains mostly constant, but since it’s not energy …idk.
@houssemamami4359
7 ай бұрын
@@anywallsocket I dont think you need to come up with a theory of QM+GR to assure energy conservation. Energy,is conserved on a classical level so no need for a quantum theory of gravity for that ( as in classical electrodynamics)
@dss-homemadestuff8580
7 ай бұрын
HAHAHA... "Energy density of the Vacuum remains constant as the universe expands"... How stupid can you be. Space and Vacuum is NOT a constant, it fluctuates and shifts all the time due to all that is happening everywhere. Simplified for idiots: Think of the universe as a big ocean... And like any ocean it has warm and cold patches that constantly moves and shifts. Idiots will say: but in vaccum there is nothing so it is a constant.......Vaccum is just absence of air... Air are not the only particles that exist !!!!!!.
@joenefflen845
7 ай бұрын
I only have an MS in Physics, but at some level, the Laws of Thermodynamics seem more like applied statistics than really coming from first principle in and of themselves. Thanks for presenting this.
@ObjectsInMotion
7 ай бұрын
No one thinks they are first principles, you aren’t special
@brad.fuller
7 ай бұрын
so, you are still confused, but on a much _higher level_ than me :) lol
@juliasophical
7 ай бұрын
@@brad.fuller Yeah that's the world for you. The more you understand, the more confused you will be. Anyone who says anything is "obvious" is profoundly ignorant on whatever topic they are discussing... 🙄
@allinballsout1
7 ай бұрын
🤫
@YodaWhat
7 ай бұрын
@@juliasophical- ROFL. To a point, you are correct. Now try this on for size: "It is obvious to me that the more I understand, the less I know... At least _know with certainty._"
@Dom_Maretti
7 ай бұрын
I expect that at some point, possibly not in any of our lifetimes, that the models that use dark energy will be looked upon in much the same way as we do now at the archaic astronomy of Ptolemaic Epicycles.
@DavidMFChapman
7 ай бұрын
My thoughts exactly!
@effectingcause5484
6 ай бұрын
Shouldn't we expect a redshift when looking at far-away galaxies? Isn't all the space dust going to absorb more of the higher energy blue light anyways, leaving behind mostly red wavelengths? So why are they surprised to find that galaxies are more and more redshifted the farther away they are? So surprising, that we come up with an expanding universe instead of just space dust blocking all the bluer, shorter wavelengths?
@tomfeng5645
6 ай бұрын
@@effectingcause5484 If we were talking about the envelope of light (e.g. the average wavelength) then, sure, but that's not what redshift is. Redshift looks at specific wavelengths that are absorbed/emitted by atoms/ions/molecules. Therefore, any blocking effect can only possibly block these spectral lines, not change what wavelength they are.
@effectingcause5484
6 ай бұрын
@@tomfeng5645 aaahhhhh of course! That is the answer i've been needing for this curiosity i've been wondering. I've been considering this space dust possibility for months now and you just crushed it.. thank yu sir!
@tomfeng5645
6 ай бұрын
@@effectingcause5484 No problem! It's a common theme for many of us in the sciences that we kinda gloss over "obvious" details that are actually quite technical. It's always a huge challenge in science communication, and I'm glad to clear this up for you.
@DrDeuteron
7 ай бұрын
Random thermal motion is not useless. For instance, it keeps you from freezing solid.
@SmartassEyebrows
7 ай бұрын
You still can't do work with it. You can only do work with a temperature *differential* (see Carnot cycle), but not with heat content in and of itself.
@alexgonzo5508
7 ай бұрын
@@SmartassEyebrowsI think it might be possible to use geometry and different material properties to design something that can create a local temperature (energy) differential upon an object (or molecule) that can cause the object to acquire a non-random vector. This vector can then be utilized to harness work in some way. Consider how a DC rectifier operates in an AC electrical circuit; it follows a similar concept. While this seems logical to me, i suspect you may disagree.
@Mercurio-Morat-Goes-Bughunting
7 ай бұрын
Well, some would argue that the radiative heat exchange between you and the other molecules in the space is what keeps you from freezing solid. We know that radiation exists and functions this was from an abundance of *applied* physics done over a dew centuries. Establishing that a separate process applies, when the electron shell(s) of an air molecule randomly interacts with the electron shell(s) of one of your molecules, isn't a given and takes some experimental elbow grease because there's a LOT which can be explained by radiation transfer and radiation transfer can't be ruled out in the case of materials in contact. Moreover, it's not ruled out as the process of heat transfer within a solid.
@Mercurio-Morat-Goes-Bughunting
7 ай бұрын
@@alexgonzo5508 Yeah, there is. Fourier's Law. Otherwise heat wouldn't dissipate down a thermal gradient because randomly moving entities pool, statistically, around their source. However, throw in the second law of thermodynamics and heat can't travel up the thermal gradient in any significant (i.e. measurable) quantity. This is why energy can't be used to do work unless the potential of the source is higher than the sink. And, that fact scuttles your logic. Like panacea, font of eternal youth, and perpetual motion machines, the ability to put waste or ambient energy to work has been a mirage chased by many for centuries and dark energy can't help if it's purely imaginary.
@chickenjuse9105
7 ай бұрын
@alexgonzo5508 I've thought of a similar concept that strips the randomness of heat through magnetic induction to convert it into useful energy. Would you like to get in contact so we can exchange designs? Creating a heat to energy generator would create almost unlimited free energy, and would also double as a cryogenic refrigerator.
@ultrametric9317
7 ай бұрын
That said, the lack of such a conservation law - a Hamiltonian for GR - is what wrecks everything. So just throwing it away is worse than living with the consequences.
@UltimatePerfection
7 ай бұрын
The guy's right though, and it will be proven in next 7 years.
@davidhand9721
7 ай бұрын
@@UltimatePerfectionOk time traveler. Mind telling us how the theory will account for every observation we have ever made validating GR on various scales?
@UltimatePerfection
7 ай бұрын
@@davidhand9721 No spoilers.
@michaelproeber1953
7 ай бұрын
@@davidhand9721 You’re conveniently ignoring galactic orbital characteristics not matching what’s predicted by GR as explained in the video.
@Scott_Hoge
7 ай бұрын
The importance of conservation law goes as far back as Emmy Noether and Immanuel Kant.
@KipIngram
7 ай бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="200">3:20</a> - Of course it went somewhere. If you shrank space back down again, it would come back. Things would totally behave as though there was a "bucket" out there that the energy went into when space expanded, and came out of when it contracted. Count that bucket, and energy would then be conserved. We typically just don't count that bucket because this is such a small effect we prefer to just ignore it, but we COULD quantify it in some way if we wanted to.
@whiteeye3453
7 ай бұрын
Saying there exist imaginary energy is like saying there magic exist
@KipIngram
7 ай бұрын
@@whiteeye3453 My point is only that if you reversed the expansion of the universe you'd get back exactly the same amount you lost. That would be a very realistic scenario in a cyclic universe, and the ONLY sensible way to interpret that would be to acknowledge it as having gone and parked somewhere in the interim. We have no problem dealing with that in smaller situations, where we count energy flows out of and into some "system" we've defined. Bottom line is that if this effect occurred to a "non-negligible" extent (insofar as our daily lives go), then we'd include some quantification of it in our laws of physics. It doesn't, so we don't. It's not imaginary - you could easily think of it as being stored in the "stretched fabric" of expanded space, much like how when you blow up a balloon elastic energy gets stored in the skin. As noted above, we don't because we don't need to in order to get good answers to our questions. Instead we just neglect it, and things work out fine. But it's not neglected because we don't know what's going on - it's neglected because it's too small to care about.
@whiteeye3453
7 ай бұрын
@@KipIngram exept we don't know how universe is big or made since we have these theories Wich isn't proof
@charlesbruneski9670
7 ай бұрын
I would say: The energy went into the expansion of space. If you lay a piece of string on your desk fashioned into a sine wave, (or look at the illustration of expanding photons shown,) and pull the ends of the string, it occupies a larger space, the wave length is longer, the amplitude is less, but the total length of the string is the same.
@whiteeye3453
7 ай бұрын
@@charlesbruneski9670 string theory isn't real and and any explanation is same as Bible creation story
@okman9684
7 ай бұрын
Sabine you should start your merch. We need some badly Some tag suggestion -That guy again with albersts pic -Nuclear energy is cool -Faster than light is possible, change my mind etc
@4Fixerdave
7 ай бұрын
Gobbledygook BUSTERS!
@james6401
7 ай бұрын
I liked those papers about fixing relativity and throwing Einstein's GR out the window
@wwlb4970
7 ай бұрын
"There's just one problem" "The phone will ring"
@markvoelker6620
7 ай бұрын
Energy from nothing, and the chicks for free.
@MOSMASTERING
7 ай бұрын
We gotta install microwave emitters.. Quantum refrigerators, mass spectrometers
@markvoelker6620
7 ай бұрын
@@MOSMASTERING🤣😂
@thstroyur
7 ай бұрын
And I want my CMB...
@zinithin-8208
6 ай бұрын
I came here to make a similar joke. Gotta move those microwave emitters.
@keaganwheeler-mccann8565
6 ай бұрын
I wanna learn to play with quasars, I wanna learn to play them drums
@alexandernaumann7450
7 ай бұрын
I talked with a fellow physic student about energy conservation within expanding space. We thought that the energy decrease of photons could be correlated to the energy increase of the expansion of the universe. Is this approach wrong? And if yes, why?
@MagruderSpoots
7 ай бұрын
That's what I heard years ago, the expanding universe result in an increase in the gravitational potential energy. But theories change so I don't know if that is the consensus today.
@thstroyur
7 ай бұрын
This is one of those 'physics folklore' things. Truth is, energy is nonconserved _locally_ in GR _regardless_ of specific model considered (in this case, cosmological); check out in the arXiv Tavel's English translation of Noether's paper on her _two_ eponymous theorems - the _second_ of which relevant to GR - which she even mentions as one of her chief motivations for publishing the paper, on behest of Hilbert. Also, Sabine didn't mention this, but the reason for the "generalized conservation law" is a differential-geometric result called the contracted Bianchi identity - dunno if you knew that already, but bonus trivium.
@Syphirioth
7 ай бұрын
@@thstroyur According to me the conservation of energy always holds true. It cannot dissapear into empty space as far is we know. It radiates into it. But not leak into it as far as we know yet leaks onto other matter/energy. Which indicates that probably space is all you need to conserve energy as a whole. It conserves itself because it occupies space. And since we still all agree that each force has an equal opposing force. We probably think we might be able to observe something. While space itself that kinda affects nothing is enough to be this opposing force (absolute negative I like to call it) yet not measurable as something.
@thstroyur
7 ай бұрын
@@Syphirioth That might be - but alas, mathematically this is an indisputable fact within GR: energy isn't locally conserved. That doesn't mean I like it - in fact, it seems to be one of the greatest weaknesses of GR - one that isn't shared by my own theory: you can check in the e-print viXra:2204.0115 that just above eq. 49 the case is made that energy is indeed conserved: *dT = 0* - with no Noether caveats, because background spacetime is Minkowski. Oh, and before you flinch, notice that I've already sent some preliminary results to the RS and, after weeks sitting and waiting, the paper finally hit 'under peer review' status a few days ago - so I'm a serious playa, boya 😉
@Syphirioth
7 ай бұрын
@@thstroyur Yes I agree it not locally conserved. Simple fact that when I push something the energy is transfered to the object. Also seems to be the fact when something radiates (pushing outwards). Or when the gravity pulls. Energy transfers. Transforms. But is not magically gone. And localization changes obviously cause the energy moved from A to B. And if that energy is once again transfered we can only see that result. Not what happened before. Also because of this localization in my opinion.
@knickohr01
7 ай бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="345">5:45</a> I keep understanding "a hundred different other mortals" instead of models. I'm starting to believe Sabine has ascended into a higher plane of existance.
@myradioon
7 ай бұрын
Existence.
@goldentortoisebeetle9741
7 ай бұрын
It’s French, exstAnce Capische?
@myradioon
7 ай бұрын
@tortoisebeetle9741 I'm Italian and it's definitely "Capisce" in both Italian and French. A video about Quantum Physics and nobody can spell....in any language apparently...too funny.
@jdlech
7 ай бұрын
We have all ascended, you just can't see it yet.
@dasstigma
7 ай бұрын
@@myradioon Not being able to spell is a prerequisite of being a smartass on KZitem 🤷♂
@TheEVEInspiration
7 ай бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="185">3:05</a> One can argue that the energy of expanding space is locked into the expansion of space. It will come back when the universe contracts by the same logic. Thus energy is conserved (if space can contract).
@pmhwoodcraft9934
7 ай бұрын
I think you are correct. If everything is made of the same stuff, then the energetic stuff attributed to dark energy, dark matter, and matter are all interacting via conservation of energy. I predict conservation of energy will be found to be always conserved. I find it interesting that in one video she clearly states that Einstein and the standard model are not complete (because they can not be resolved) and then in other videos she uses them to ridicule new theories. It is easy to see her argument in this case. That nothing has changed but it is annoying how she goes back and forth just so she is always right.
@Achrononmaster
7 ай бұрын
Right. Just change the words. The average _energy density_ is conserved. Or something like that, up to an effective global conformal scale factor. Also, there's something fishy about it all, you know ... from the classical notion that there is no such thing as absolute energy, only the differences matter (a gauge principle). The vacuum energy makes that a bit more subtle. That'd be the interest follow-on topic.
@Grak70
7 ай бұрын
Unfortunately all observations to date suggest the universe is flat or slightly open, so this isn’t something we can count on.
@SloeJuice
7 ай бұрын
I wouldn't say the contraction follows as a conclusion to a premise of energy being locked into expansion. The energy coming back due to universe contraction implies some sort of spring-like behaviour. It doesn't have to be that way: take a metal rod and pull it to beyond it's elastic limit. This way the energy is locked into the metal rod having been deformed plus some thermals - the rod will not go back to the way it was.
@Syphirioth
7 ай бұрын
@@Grak70 And this doesn't make sense at all. Maybe we can only observe the flat part and not the cross section. This is realy why I think focusing on maths to much is not gonna help at all. Logic and observations say there is 3D and 6 major directions from a center. And all observable forces like gravitational waves. Electromagnetic waves all show spherical behaviour from center source. Same goes for transmitters if they not steered. But no the universe is flat... Comon where is the logic in it? How does it even makes sense next to a zillion other observable facts micro and macro? Also if it a disk it still aint flat. Absolute flat means only 2D and thats 4 directions. not 6.
@Thomas-gk42
7 ай бұрын
Lovely, science, math, and the widely appreciated shirt changing. I hope to see a return of PinkMatter again.🙃
@YodaWhat
7 ай бұрын
Big Bang itself is the greatest Non-Conservation event of all Time and Space. Attempts to explain it otherwise are "Turtles all the way down."
@ro4eva
7 ай бұрын
I appreciate scientists who propose new theories.
@janthran
6 ай бұрын
what's wrong with the old theories? can you explain?
@sunbeam9222
6 ай бұрын
@@janthranwell what's wrong with stasis ? For me, it's not in alignment with life 's flow.
Yeah, my brain stopped hearing her talk and went somethings amiss here, only the amplitude is changing but talking wavelength change... Two people need floggings, graphics creator and the editor.
@sirwilliamkarl5591
7 ай бұрын
so, i'm not the only one...
@eraz0rhead
7 ай бұрын
I knew I wouldn't be the only one. Paused to scroll down to see who else was about to comment!
@Figure-A
7 ай бұрын
It looks like she was just showing those waves so she could compare them to after she stretched them at 3:08. I don’t think she meant to compare those 6 waves with different amplitudes to each other. It would’ve been clearer if she only showed a single sin wave before and after expanding, to denote the delta length- instead of all 6 before and after.
@adriang6424
7 ай бұрын
Dark matter, dark energy, and Sabine sporting a dark sweater.... one dark theory was proven to exist today🤫
@clydewmorgan
7 ай бұрын
she is wearing a pink sweater. Do you really think pink is a dark color?
@JaenEngineering
7 ай бұрын
@@clydewmorganshe has a new sweater though, as modelled at the end during the Brilliant sponsor read
@jedwards1792
7 ай бұрын
At the end of the video Sabine wears a black sweater with the Brilliant logo.
@Jagzeplin
7 ай бұрын
@@clydewmorganyou clearly didnt watch till the end of the video
@mikefromspace
7 ай бұрын
Incorrect. Zero point energy is the only free energy. Hundreds of zpe devices are known of, and the only explanation is that atoms use zpe to function, and all physics is fully kinetic. She quotes Einstein but omits Einstein's last words ; "Everything is relative". The only solution to this and the force proof tied to the prime spiral found by Azra Wind, is that electron neutrinos are fueling the progressive kinetic reaction of everything as they are hydraulically superior. If you even attempt to use any second force of any kind, anywhere, it splits the prime spiral so that's impossible. Everything must branch off the electron neutrino wind found by Ice Cube to flow into the galactic bulge. I've done this 30 years and nobody has any valid unification without progressive kinetics.
@bbbl67
7 ай бұрын
Wasn't energy non-conservation already explained by Noether's Theorem back in 1916? She talked about time symmetry breaking resulting in energy non-conservation.
@ShawnHCorey
7 ай бұрын
@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a> No. The measured energy is different. Observers in different frames of reference measure different amounts of energy. Consider a throw baseball. To an observer in the stands, its energy is ½mv². But an observer in a train travelling at the same speed in the same direction, measures it to have zero energy (since its relative velocity is zero). Energy isn't lost because of the expansion of the universe. It's your measure of the energy that changes because you are in a different frame of reference.
@Pending22
7 ай бұрын
Exactly! I can't believe that was put out as an explanation. I'm not even a physicist and I understand this. Why is it that when physicists talk about entropy and energy etc they completely allow themselves to forget that they're allowing goalposts to change in some quantity which should remain constant, or allowing a quantity to remain fixed when it should vary - depending on the type of measurement/reference frame being considered. This is why physical theories and the way they're taught (and poorly understood) are in such a mess!
@karlbarlow8040
7 ай бұрын
Does it equate to the energy needed to boost you to the speed of the baseball?
@ShawnHCorey
7 ай бұрын
@@karlbarlow8040 No, the energy of you or the train relative to the stands is very large compared to the energy of the baseball. It's because of the difference in mass. You and the train have a lot more mass and need a lot more energy to acquire that speed.
@karlbarlow8040
7 ай бұрын
@@ShawnHCorey Thanks for the answer.
@BiéreSaint-Pub
7 ай бұрын
Apart from the expert explanations (which I have to listen to more than one time to get it) the paper shows that the lack of international cooperation really sets you back gifted as you may be.
@rmatson
7 ай бұрын
This has become my favorite You Tube channel. Thanks!
@Vladimir.Khomyakov
7 ай бұрын
Trillions of tons of buried hydrogen: Clean energy gold rush begins Source: Financial Times * * * Geologists signal start of hydrogen energy ‘gold rush’ - Ultra-high density hydrogen storage holds twice as much as liquid H2
@mito._
7 ай бұрын
I'm convinced that anything that is guessed in theoretical physics is just a way to insert a placeholder as truth. We say the universe is expanding, because that is what we see, because of a dark thing that must exist because it explains the expansion. Right up there with the promise of free energy from fusion and quantum computing.
@cj09beira
7 ай бұрын
100%
@therealquade
7 ай бұрын
Sounds like how a refrigerator works. Coolant gets compressed and decompressed to manipulate thermal energy... except space itself is stretched or compressed by mass...
@gregorygant4242
7 ай бұрын
Yes, but did you know that your refrigerator is an over unity energy device? It is in fact a free energy device , the physics teachers, elite controllers of this world won't tell you that will they ? I wonder how many other free energy devices they have suppressed from the public to keep us buying , coal, gas, electricity , keep us slaves ?
@cloudpoint0
7 ай бұрын
Space itself doesn't change but gravitational fields carried by space change in the presence of mass energy increasing the lengths of the geodesic paths that objects must follow through space, objects including photons.
@seanbirtwistle649
7 ай бұрын
@@cloudpoint0 wut
@therealquade
7 ай бұрын
@@cloudpoint0 you missed my point, because that doesnt change anything. The point is, expansion and compression of anything, places that thing into a higher or lower energy state. From red/blue shift, to the heating and cooling of thermal pumps, its the same. I just never considered that for EM with changes in the curvature of spacetime. This actually solves a physics problem where we dont have a way to convert electrons into gamma. We can get up to xray, but gamma always requires a radioisotope. If spacetime curvature can be used, theres that problem solved-ish.
@cloudpoint0
7 ай бұрын
@@therealquade I’m not disagreeing with your main point. I’m just restating your terminology to agree with what cosmologists understand. What you said still applies. An object moving away redshifts in the observer’s perspective (not physically though, newly emitted photons still have the same wavelength). My point is spacetime curvature is a useful mathematical interpretation of the phenomenon but it is not a real world interpretation. Empty space does not do anything - it’s nothing.
@TravisCotter
6 ай бұрын
When I wake up with low energy I fall asleep until I have more energy to wake up. That's energy conservation. X-force
@ayoutubechannelname
7 ай бұрын
What if objects not only had a probability density distribution in space, but had one in time as well? Thus not only is the position and momentum of an object uncertain, the time in which it is observed is uncertain too. “Time uncertainty” among entangled objects might cause clustering of objects in time leading to “energy non-conservation”. The objects would be quantified in units of energy*time which would be distributed along the four dimensions of space time (whose physical extension is forever baked in the past and the future) and the “energy” of that object is simply the derivative of that (energy*time) object with respect to the time coordinate. It could be that the (energy*time) object is what is truly conserved. However, I could imagine a universe with an additional dimension in which these (energy*time) objects are animated in someway, like some continuously variable continuum of parallel universes where these (energy*time) objects exhibit some kind of interesting behavior of their own. A “non-conservation” of that might exist that is resolved by repeating this same process to even higher dimensions.
@ralph3333
7 ай бұрын
My phone went dark n I fully grasp the gravity of my situation.
@mikemondano3624
7 ай бұрын
Something from nothing? Sounds right. Where do I send all my money?
@SkyDarmos
7 ай бұрын
As far as I know, energy is only conserved one a closed universe, not in an open universe.
@robertroseberger965
7 ай бұрын
Neil Turok has said that the expansion of the universe is from wavelengths of light getting longer. So which is it? Wavelengths get longer because the universe expands? Or the universe expands because of light?
@bjornfeuerbacher5514
7 ай бұрын
Where has Turok said that? I never heard him say that.
@O_Lee69
7 ай бұрын
If you watch a rotating galaxy from the side, you will see one half with a red shift (rotating away from us) and one half with a blue shift (rotating towards us). How is this explained with that model?
@richardsrichards2984
7 ай бұрын
hehe😂😂...he aint Jesus..his words are not absolute.Bring logical arguments not who said what.
@cjwrench07
7 ай бұрын
It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of what was said, or the intent of saying it. Unless you have a link?
@cjwrench07
7 ай бұрын
@@O_Lee69obviously it’s alien children fooling around with the settings of our school project zoo/universe.
@frankkolmann4801
7 ай бұрын
Hi Sabine I thought as space expands it does not actually stretch, there is just more space occupied by the same dark energy density as exists everywhere. Consequently expanding space does not stretch and does not stretch anything within the space. The red shift of light from distant objects is simply a doppler effect caused by motion. Something I wonder about is, if expanding space can move objects apart at greater than lightspeed and if the laws of the universe are the same everywhere then the gamma-factor becomes imaginary , I am too dumb, I try to find if someone has derived gamma-factor for objects moving apart at greater than light speed but I have never found anything. All I can find is energy becomes infinite, but this cannot be true. The objects reference frames do not change, the objects have not changed. Space has not changed as space changes in the presence of matter, there simply is more space. Hence I conclude Dark Energy either does not exist as postulated and no one has the faintest clue as to what is Dark Energy or the entire universe is filled with an infinite amount of energy, hence energy is constant. But I guess that too is wrong.
@luizbotelho1908
6 ай бұрын
relativistic inertia , as represented by the particle mass , is velocity dependent in Relativity Theory .If the velocity super-pass light velocity , mass became an PURE imaginary number . Perhaps we live in a complex space-time .....(as happens in the world of elementary particles!).
@SFish-wr4kh
7 ай бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="107">1:47</a> love the little quips sprinkled in lmao <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="120">2:00</a>
@ty2010
7 ай бұрын
Galaxies don't rotate too fast, because the stars don't rotate around a center mass, they rotate around the galaxy's moment of intertia. This is the same reason that counter rotating planets are a rarity. If anything, the speed of the outer stars will inform you of the mass distribution and speed of the inner galaxy, more so than the total mass. Additionally, those with super massive black holes at the core will also have a very large amount of accretion that remains dark because the shear stress of gravitation/speed will prevent the formation of stars. This dark rotating mass will in turn increase the radius and speed of galaxy's rotational moment, which will increase the speed of the outer star clusters. REee and double ree on the exotic dark matter inflaters
@cpi23
7 ай бұрын
just found your channel, love your presentation style.
@juliusfucik4011
7 ай бұрын
If space expands, reducing the energy of photons by increasing their wavelenght, wouldn't the reverse be true as well? So if space contracts, the emergy of photons increases? This would mean the energy is conserved. It is somehow in the space.
@scientificperspective1604
7 ай бұрын
Excellent video. Physicists are a bit closer to understanding the actual nature of the universe. You have all of the information you need to arrive at the next level of understanding of the universe. You only need to free yourselves from dogma.
@donholmstrom6482
7 ай бұрын
I always thought the explanation for lack of energy conservation in the universe was that energy is only conserved in closed systems and the universe is not a closed system.
@rajeevgangal542
7 ай бұрын
So an expanding universe is equivalent to an open system? Because energy conservation is applicable only in closed systems. Right?
@davidhand9721
7 ай бұрын
Not really
@kazedcat
6 ай бұрын
Dark energy is created as space expands which in turn makes space expand faster. Seems very open that it can fuel a positive feedback loop.
@MoSleeps
6 ай бұрын
I love making new theorys sitting for hours apon hours learning piecing stuff together
@nzuckman
7 ай бұрын
Sabine, if photon wavelengths get stretched out by the expansion of the universe, what about the debroglie wavelengths of matter particles like electrons and nucleons? Shouldn't they also get stretched out?
@edtheduck6219
7 ай бұрын
I’m not an expert but I understand that no, they stay the same size, just the underlying spacetime changes. Bad analogy: marbles on a stretching rubber sheet...
@Spherical_Cow
7 ай бұрын
No, because of quantum mechanics. A photon can be of literally any wavelength: the wavelength is a continuously varying parameter, not quantized. Matter has a fixed wavelength (or in other words, a particle of matter has a fixed mass that corresponds to a fixed quantity of energy), because it is fundamentally quantized.
@nzuckman
7 ай бұрын
@@Spherical_Cow I have a bachelor's degree in physics and there was nothing we covered in quantum I or II that suggested to me that the expansion of space should stretch the wavelengths of radiation but not matter. The debroglie wavelength is a continuous variable that depends on momentum. You're probably thinking of the Compton wavelength. I'm pretty sure mass isn't quantized because it doesn't only come in integer multiples of some base unit. I don't know that there's any evidence to justify the assumption that matter particles had the same mass ten billion years ago that they do today either.
@CalRPVC
7 ай бұрын
Don't know about evidence that masses of elementary particles were the same 10 billion years ago, but isn't it a pretty fundamental assumption we make? @nzuckman
@davidhand9721
7 ай бұрын
Wow, that's a lot of authoritative sounding wrong answers. Mass _is_ quantized, obviously, because we never see 3/4 of an electron. In QM, a particle's wavelength is related inversely to momentum, not at all constant. (Linear) Momentum is _not_ quantized. Particles will lose momentum to stretching space just like light does.
@SaintBenard
7 ай бұрын
Throwing out energy conservation will never happen. We may have to move our understanding of the next container
@Manuel_Bache
7 ай бұрын
Bache, MAB (2020; 2023a; 2023b) Love the Dark Sweating, a new kind of necessary "something" to bring the gap of the models Please mind the gap🇬🇧🇬🇧
@AmixLiark
6 ай бұрын
I think that the truth is way more complicated. My hypothesis suggests that electromagnetic waves also manifest as fractals. Aka the electromagnetic waves we experience is noise riding along the surface of another spectrum of electromagnetic waves too large for us to interact with. Our own spectrum of electromagnetic waves has noise riding along it's surface , well within the boundaries of uncertainty, which means energy is not only relative, but may pass on to infinitely many fractals/demiverses; each having it's own big bang and heat death. I use the term "demiverse" because there is no distinct boundary beyond the limitations of perception and testing in any one electromagnetic spectrum. Fractals imply that any number, no matter how small, can be divided into infinitely many smaller numbers. It is possible that electromagnetic waves share a similar existence in this respect.
@tapferertoast6923
7 ай бұрын
nice she says twitter, but the trans show youtube :)
@AnimusInvidious
7 ай бұрын
The idea of the big bang is the biggest violation of energy conservation one can imagine. Literally all energy coming from literally no energy.
@davebway6371
7 ай бұрын
We accept that expansion is constant across all parts of space. What if expansion is greater where mass is less?
@walterbaltzley4546
7 ай бұрын
Conservation of Energy only works in a CLOSED system. A system that is not closed can always receive energy from the outside. Since the introduction of quantum foam, and the idea of "quasi-particles" you create the possibility of matter or energy arising from "nothing". It is not exactly nothing, but can be conceived of as a roiling sea of energy fragments that almost always cancel each other out, but sometimes come together into a form that we can recognize.
@salsaman
7 ай бұрын
String theory postulates that gravity extends into higher dimensions. Is it possible that dark matter is just normal matter, but dimensionally displaced ? So we cannot detect it, but it has a gravitational effect. Another idea I had is that perhaps as you move in dimension > 4, time speeds up relative to us. Thus, dark matter can clump faster than normal matter, which then attracts normal matter, explaining the apparent paradox of early galaxy formation.
@magicsinglez
7 ай бұрын
The sun orbits the Milky Way at a speed 3.5 times faster than the universe is expanding.
@randerscheinung1
7 ай бұрын
Dear Sabine, "the energy change has to match the change of space in time" - doesn't that mean that space itself does have energy?!
@Thomas-gk42
7 ай бұрын
quantum flucuation
@JackAdrianZappa
7 ай бұрын
If a photon's wavelength is increasing due to space expanding, is it not possible that the photon is "giving up" it's energy to generate space, thus keeping energy conservation intact?
@kazedcat
6 ай бұрын
That's what generalized energy conservation is describing. But Dark energy wrecks the nice symmetric equation with a nasty +λ on your metric tensor.
@Square-Watermelon
7 ай бұрын
This is the entire makeup of matter & free energy: 1) Dark Points = (Particle / Solid Mass / Do Not Change Size) 2) Light Points = (Energy / Massless / Does Change Size) 1) When 1 Dark Point and 1 Light Point combine, they create 1 Dipole Element. 2) When 2 Dipole Elements combine, they create 1 Photon. 3) When 1,823 Photons combine, they create 1 Proton. When 1,824 Photons combine, they create 1 Neutron 4) When Protons and Neutrons combine, they create the rest of existence 1) 1 Dark Point + 1 Light Point = 1 Dipole Element. 2) 2 Dipole Elements = 1 Photon. 3) 1,823 Photons = 1 Proton & 1,824 Photons = 1 Neutron. 4) Protons + Neutrons = Everything & Everything is Light When enough Dark Points and Light Points combine, the Dark Points all congregate in the center of the protons and neutrons and the Light Points create a coating around the Dark Points so that they're no longer seen. In the stable elements, extra photons want to combine with the protons and neutrons, but are repelled into orbitals by the Light Points. Roger Spurr of Mudfossil University on KZitem has irrefutable proof of this and even convinced CERN to change out their particle detectors for CMOS detectors so they too can see this for themselves. Update: CERN has now detected what they call neutrinos (Dark Points & Light Points) for the first time ever, after having listened to Roger Spurr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Venturis Create Free Energy: Principle 1: Dark Points cannot change size Principle 2: Light Points can change size Principle 3: When (red or blue or green, etc) photons enter into a venturi the Dark Points will be forced to return from the direction that they came from, but the Light Points will separate from the Dark Points and condense and go through the throat of the venturi. Principle 4: When Light Points pass through the throat of a venturi alone, they create what is known as electron showers and increase their energy 200x Task 1: Send (red or blue or green, etc) photons into a Venturi which has a throat smaller than the size of Dark Points. Task 2: Manufacture a device that can capture this excess energy in the pure energy zone and funnel some of it back to the light generating device and some of it toward a battery. Note 1: You need CMOS detectors to see photons. As the light gets pulled into the venturi the Light Points condense to go through the throat. The Dark Points on the other hand cannot change size and are forced backward, away from the throat. As the Points separate, called fission, excess energy is created by the Light Points. Immediately on the exit end of the venturi is a very small zone of pure massless energy of only Light Points. These Light Points will have a significantly increased energy level of 200x as compared to the energy that went into the venturi. Immediately beyond this very small zone of pure energy is when Dark Points show up to attach to the Light Points, which is fusion. We want to use the energy before the Dark Points begin attaching to the Light Points. How to Create Infinite Excess Energy: 1) Create a venturi with a throat that is smaller than the diameter of Dark Points. 2) Send (red or blue or green, etc) photons through the venturi. 3) If an absorption and siphoning device can be placed in the zone of pure massless energy, before fusion occurs, we can harness free unlimited clean energy. Route some energy back to the light generator & route some energy to a battery or whatever device you want. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Repent of your sins or suffer the consequences. Lord Jesus died in our places personally to take the death punishment that sin deserves and then resurrected by the power of God. Believe this and sincerely repent of your sins each time you sin and you will have eternal life and nothing to fear. Fail to repent and you will end up in the Lake of Fire.
@johnneale3105
7 ай бұрын
I am not a non-scientist, I basically understand the scientific method, but I do struggle with scientists coming up with theorems when their observations do not match their current theorems (bear with me) and their latter theorems involve unobservable phenomena, such as dark matter/energy, for which, despite the expenditure of a great amount of research, they have come up with no evidence. If this was a new thing I could understand but does anyone remember ether?
@anthonycarbone3826
7 ай бұрын
Is not the stretching and shrinking of space merely a matter of perspective. From a photon's view point or anything going the speed of light there is no stretching or shrinking of space.
@LaFranceBonjour
7 ай бұрын
I believe in the theory that there was a random energy or temperature fluctuation that caused space to expand from nothing and stretch rapidly causing a chain reaction. The universe had an eternity for a random fluctuation to occur
@denisjudehaughton7363
7 ай бұрын
Sabine, solve the following (completely!) and all your questions would be answered: 'Why are things small far away?' an example would be a twinkling star on top of your fingertip
@stevenpike7857
7 ай бұрын
Let's say you had the resources, and placed a wire that went up into space and was connected to a coil. The coil floats between a ribon of magnets that goes around the earth's orbit of the sun. As the earth goes around the sun and the coil moves through the ribbon, it would generate electricty.
@OpenWorldRichard
6 ай бұрын
I was first alerted to the problem of energy conservation when I read the book by Paul Dirac titled General Theory of Relativity. He says on page 45 "In curved space the conservation of energy and momentum is only approximate". What that means is that for an accurate conservation of energy equation you have to include space curvature. If you define total energy in accordance with the Einstein equations of GR as mass plus energy plus the energy of spacetime curvature then you have a total energy in the universe of zero. Also the expansion of space then provides a source of energy (from space curvature energy) for matter formation. See the evolution of the universe open world book 1 Amazon. Richard
@parthenocarpySA
7 ай бұрын
At the end of the day human models never directly correlate <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="61">1:1</a> with any component of reality, and our abilities and understandings will forever be constrained in this way
@sabinrawr
7 ай бұрын
Can a single photon be redshifted? My thought here is that no, it can't, but a large group of photons can be redshifted together into slightly higher quantity but at a lower energy, leaving the total energy of the "beam" equal. It would help to explain one of my biggest curiosities about the early universe: How is it that the light from a (relatively) tiny universe hasn't already diffused into nothingness? The very fact that we can see this light is a mystery in itself.
@cj09beira
7 ай бұрын
or its not from the start of the universe as idiots would assume imo
@rickybloss8537
7 ай бұрын
Nothingness has no limitations if it did it wouldn't be nothing. This allows autogenic rules to self insert themselves. The rules act on one another which gives rise to time, the relationships between the rules give rise to space, the rule application orderings give rise to quantum mechanics, being observers embedded in them gives rise to general relativity, and the unbounded nothingness outside reality allows more rules to self insert which causes the expansion of the universe.
@MikeSmith-cl4ix
7 ай бұрын
The energy is still conserved if space is stretched out because although the light has a longer wavelength and lower frequency when it is absorbed by matter it will be absorbed over a longer duration therefore the total energy will not change.
@glenwaldrop8166
6 ай бұрын
I'm quite confident that there are still energy sources that would have been considered violating the law of energy conversation simply because we don't yet understand everything. The theories that combine EM and gravity (parallel but attached) hold a lot of promise. I think we're massively underestimating the effect of EM. It is light, it is everywhere. Magnetic fields are quite likely far larger than we currently think. Magnetism repels *and* attracts.
@rtyzxc
7 ай бұрын
An idea just popped in my mind to explain dark energy. What if there is a another, magnitudes weaker, longer distance force than gravity that makes matter repel each other? Gravity would be strong enough to hold together star systems and galaxies, but at larger distances, the repelling force would win. Kind of how positively charged particles in atomic nucleus repel each other, but the strong force keeps it together at close distance.
@midnighttrain-jz2my
6 ай бұрын
The Author of the article is Hamidreza Fazlollahi, an Iranian graduate student.
@harrypehkonen
7 ай бұрын
Once we have these equations figured out completely, we will shake our heads at the thought of "dark energy" just like we can shake our heads at "impetus" being behind a flying cannon ball.
@Robubbabub
7 ай бұрын
A few years ago, i sent an email asking a physics professor at the local university if energy is conserved for red shifting photons. Never got a response. I even made a video throwing the question into the void. Glqd to hear some smart people are visiting the subject.
@2adamast
7 ай бұрын
You mean does a car lose energy when you drive as fast
@apocraphontripp4728
7 ай бұрын
The visual universe acts like a ZPM drawing energy out of nothing. The universe is also a tesseract. Expanding and collapsing at the same time, including time.
@bubaks2
7 ай бұрын
I have always wondered about this. Is energy really conserved? Where did everything come from?
@MrTomyCJ
7 ай бұрын
The usefullness of the energy in the air is not an intrinsic property, it's the same kind of energy, just in a different context in which WE can't use it. If next to it we had a vacuum, we could use it to harness the energy of that air. If I were an atom, I could use the energy of a single molecule to push me around, etc. I know the video doesn't say otherwise, it's just that I wanted to make this clarification explicit.
@Rocksite1
5 ай бұрын
I think that if we posit that mass-energy can also be exchanged for spacetime, a more colloquial name for it might be conservation of mass-energy-spacetime. Thus, it might be possible to tap zero-point energy without even violating such a conservation law. OTOH, one real concern is the flow of entropy. If we suppose that the Universe is full of dark energy, it doesn't necessarily mean it's in a place where we can tap it. I'm of the opinion that entropy is a tendency, and intelligence might be able to bring order to chaotic matter and violate the conservation of Boltzman order of the system; but then I'm no expert.
@randerscheinung1
7 ай бұрын
Isn't general covariance _equivalent_ to giving up energy conservation? I mean, when it's allowed to arbitrarily change the observer (and, therefore, the kinetic _energy_ of the observer) - doesn't that mean we allow arbitrary changes of the energy state?
@brianredmond4919
7 ай бұрын
Gotta love astro physics - when your theory and hard sums don’t work out, just invent a new invisible substance. Either anyone ?. Dark matter sounds exciting scary stuff. How about vicious energy or mental gravity ?.
@martf1061
7 ай бұрын
Exactly how religions and the "god concept" started.. When you cant proove or explain any phenomenon, just say it's a "Divine intervention" 😏😉
@submersedsword4949
7 ай бұрын
I'm going to college and working towards electrical engineering, I have been having my own hypothesis for energy.
@mirceamarinprunean4839
4 ай бұрын
energy is free, if you have a giant tube and you fill it with water and you put a floating container in it, you pull a pressure pipe with a cylinder the size of a pen full of mercury that is heated instantly with 24v induction, it expands and it creates an equal pressure in the tube and makes the float fall 20m, when the mercury is cooled the pressure returns to normal and the float rises by flotation. all that remains to be done is to get mechanical work from the container float when it goes down and up
@johnslugger
7 ай бұрын
*You can only extract power from a SINGULARITY forever. For humans to harness a Singularity at this stage of our development it needs to be a very tiny one (Like a speck of dust) far away for any intimidate gravity field (In it's own orbit around the Sun would be nice and stable when we find the orbital "sweet spot" for it). Place Beryllium mirrors around it to start making heat and a force field to keep it centered in the surrounding Beryllium mirror. A small exit hole for the heat energy is all that is needed to operate a large silicon "Power Cell".*
@DihelsonMendonca
7 ай бұрын
❤ I love when you put these long equations on the screen: I don't understand them exactly the way I never understood when I was in college. 😅😅
@Thomas-gk42
7 ай бұрын
Happily you're not alone, but I trust in Dr. Sabine.
@captain_fiji2403
6 ай бұрын
@@Thomas-gk42Do not be fooled by these liars
@ammosophobia
6 ай бұрын
The decrease in energy due to spatial expansion results in time. But I hold to a novel idea that time is a product of space and not a property of it.
@philippecassagne3192
7 ай бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="180">3:00</a> " If the space expands, the wavelength of the photons increases, therefore their energy decreases". Yes, but if space expands, there is also more vacuum, and therefore more energy vacuum. Therefore, it seems difficult to say anything precise about energy conservation in such case ?
@fakhruddinnalawala5451
7 ай бұрын
There is one another way that energy isn't conserved - light interference. Two waves can cancel out completely, or the resultant wave can have less energy than the inputs; i.e.; output energy
@Andrius319
7 ай бұрын
I dont think you can merge two photons like that- exactly same direction and position. But im not 100% sure.
@fakhruddinnalawala5451
7 ай бұрын
@@Andrius319 Yes, you’re correct, I should’ve used the word “waves”
@Andrius319
7 ай бұрын
@@MaxStephandurchpiquer hey, you seem a little more versed in this area, can you tell what happens when two laser beams go through beam splitter, one from left and the other from top. Beam splitter line goes from top left to bottom right. If i remember correctly reflected wave has 180 degrees shift, with that in mind it is possible to get a case (with input phases) when outgoing beams weaken each other and in the other case strengthens. However it is all good if reflected wave doesnt do 180 phase shift, whats going on?
@moc5541
7 ай бұрын
I do recall having read that prior the the discovery of the neutrino certain leading physicists did then actively consider the possibility of energy non-conservation.
@moc5541
7 ай бұрын
Make that "prior to the", not "prior the the."
@jmssun
7 ай бұрын
I always am in awe of the confidence modern science has in it self knowing 85% of material and energy are no yet accountable
@sunbeam9222
6 ай бұрын
For real. Seems to me like that's proper magic in display.
@electricalien
7 ай бұрын
If space shrinks all the energy would be returned to the system, so its not really missing, it's just stored in the streched space, and by adding a variable to any equation to allow for the volume of space you wouldn't violate energy conservation.
@kazedcat
6 ай бұрын
Dark energy is constant for a given volume of space so as the universe expands more dark energy is created. Where did that extra energy come from?
@tedsmith6137
7 ай бұрын
My question has long been " If you cannot do work without consuming energy, how does a magnet stick to the fridge without needing a power source? How does gravity work without any apparent consumption of energy?" The more we learn, the less we know.
@tomitom3422
7 ай бұрын
It is Worth mentioning the Ummo alien cosmology theory (see ummo letters on the net). Here are its basics: our space time is composed of ordinary matter. What we call dark matter is a gravitation interaction from a twin space time, existing in other dimensions than our universe in which time is reversed and masses have a negative sign. The gravitation force penetrates through both universes . This is why gravitation intensity is much smaller than other natural forces. The gravitational interactions between the universe tends to move away positive and negative masses. This is why one can see dark places in our universe bending light while there is nothing visible there. Thr bend is due to the negative mass in the twin universe. Void between our galaxies is filled with negative mass in the twin universe. The sum of the energy of the two universes is constant. It is possible to breach the boundary between these two universes and pass energy from one to the other. Mastering this energy transfer is the key to interstellar travel. And the key to long term energy production. But using wrongly such process with a bomb can lead to chain reactions able to severely destroy half of the Earth surface.
@stuckinlodi100
7 ай бұрын
Virtually; all assumptive theories are more akin to Jung's declaration that he "knows God exists" rather than speculates that the elite being may exist as a declaration. This is often called Grouchoism..
@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch
7 ай бұрын
I clicked this video thinking "Surely not", since scientists are almost all in agreement that energy is fading and the universe must end, literally nothing could ever prevent that outcome. Some scientists have even ended their lives upon realizing the doomed nature of the universe, since we know everything about energy.
@theswordthatcutsnothing2289
7 ай бұрын
if we can’t make instruments smaller than quarks then the infinity of things smaller than quarks will remain invisible to use forever. infinity is logically perpetual, but that doesn’t mean you can harness it.
@dmitryvodolazsky
6 ай бұрын
Potentially we can to observe (and may be to manipulate) unlimited tiny objects. 1. (obvious) Using small wavelength -- with big energy, but carefully organized. 2. In style of "subwavelength microscopy".
@aberone_library
7 ай бұрын
"The brief answer is no. But that's for an interesting reason!.." Hahaha we people of science be like that all the time, loved that bit
@BD-np6bv
7 ай бұрын
The reason why energy is conserved is because if you think of quantum field theory where ripples in the fields represent matter, also represent energy in the electromagnetic quantum field exhibiting as light. The two are interchangeable as per Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. What is being said is excitations in one field doesn't just dissipate, but instead can transfer to another field to turn matter to energy or energy to matter. If energy isn't conserved, then mass also isn't conserved, so black holes would eventually disappear without Hawking radiation, or fat people would simply magically lose weight. As for light losing energy as an object is moving away, and I'm not talking expansion of the universe but a source actually moving away, that's because energy is being spread across more spacetime. So while we measure it less in terms of wavelengths, the total energy, when you add all the total light emitted AFTER waiting for all of it to reach us, will be the same. This is true of dark energy creating empty space in the regions where matter has less effect on spacetime, no longer suppressing spacetime from expanding, and causing a redshift in the light energy reaching us. But if you wait for a total light energy to reach us, taking into account it'll take longer for the total light to reach us, you'll find the total energy will be the same. So, just because wavelengths are stretched doesn't mean energy is not conserved. Otherwise, mass wouldn't be conserved either because energy and mass are just different manifestions of the same thing, and fat people would eventually lose weight by doing nothing to lose weight.
@stanleykomonce8302
7 ай бұрын
I like the Brilliant shirt ...you made it look fabulous after wearing that other shirt for months , brilliant 🎉
@zdenekkindl2778
7 ай бұрын
Yes, I think that pink shirt needed a wash anyway…
@Thomas-gk42
7 ай бұрын
@@zdenekkindl2778...or she has as much as varieties of string theories exist
@gregorykrajeski6255
7 ай бұрын
1. I had always thought that the reduced energy of the CMBR was put into some universal potential energy which could be recaptured if the universe ever shrank back down. Analogous to how you need gravitational potential energy to balance out kinetic energy in Newtonian mechanics. 2. If we were to fill a volume of space with photons and then shrink that volume of space way down the photons would have much more energy. If we can ever warp space this could be an interesting option for essentially unlimited power.
@craigswanson8026
7 ай бұрын
“Dark” whatever is likely the matter/energy fields which are out of phase with us. But right here with us. But undetectable (dark).
@harrybarrow6222
7 ай бұрын
Look up Noether's theorem. Emmy Noether was a German mathematician who was highly regarded by David Hilbert and Albert Einstein. They brought her from Nazi Germany to Princeton. They thought she could help them solve a Problem with general relativity. She solved it in her first year at Princeton, Her theorem states that every continuous symmetry of physical laws has a corresponding conservation law. The fact that physical laws are the same through time gives energy conservation. The fact that they are the same everywhere gives momentum conservation. The fact that they are the same for every orientation gives conservation of angular momentum. Emmy Noether was an outstandingly brilliant mathematician.
@thstroyur
7 ай бұрын
The theorem(s) was (were) proved in the late 1910's; neither the Nazis nor the Princeton Center were a thing, then...
@PHeMoX
6 ай бұрын
The biggest issue with dark energy and dark matter, is that it is essentially an artificial fix for a problem we haven't solved yet. In reality dark energy or dark matter might not exist at all. Which would imply some of our most basic understandings of physics are wrong. And although the law of energy conservation might work a little different in practice, all observable systems seem to work towards finding an equilibrium. When something finds such a rest state, what would it mean for energy conservation anyway? And I wouldn't say there's any proof that energy is not conserved just going by all the basic laws of physics we can observe on a daily basis. But having said that, we seem to make up a lot of rules for which no real proof exists (yet). For example, when thinking about going faster than light. There's no real physical problem there. It would more so be a problem in how you'd experience the world at such a speed. Hitting anything at those speeds seems instant death to me. You'd be dead and understand what happens by the time light travelled into your eyes. So, instead of a physical limit, it might be a practical limit instead. And as far as the energy required to go such a speed for any given mass, I think for the longest time we believed we were stuck on our earth planet too. And we've proven that wrong. What if there's an escape velocity for time itself?
@Grak70
7 ай бұрын
Sabine out here just casually giving me the counter-answer to Creationists’ “energy can’t be created or destroyed so the Big Bang never happened” argument.
@lincolnuland5443
6 ай бұрын
You can 'unfold' zero into a sum that equals 1. You can keep unfolding past that...
@colinhickey8729
7 ай бұрын
We say that the expansion of the universe, powered by dark energy, redshifts light and reduces it energy...... how do we know it's not the otherway around, that the energy lost by light redshifting isn't whats powering the expansion?
@silvergreylion
7 ай бұрын
The notion of an expansion is built on the assumption, that light will stay at the exact same wavelength across any distance. If this assumption is flawed/wrong, then there's no expansion.
@carrotchaser8511
7 ай бұрын
Doesn't the "cooling" of the universe mean the energy is conserved? If the universe expanded without losing heat (energy) it would not be in balance. This means total conservation of energy is a real observable thing
@silvergreylion
7 ай бұрын
Energy isn't even conserved in something as simple as rotational momentum. If an object is connected to a massless, non-elastic string, which is wrapped around a cylinder, and that object is spiraling inwards or outwards, following the path it's forced to by the string, energy is not conserved.
@ted_van_loon
6 ай бұрын
the general rule in advanced physics is that nothing you know about physics is actually true, it are just estimates which try to be kind of close to what you would typically see. for that reason I designed a masine some years ago, which was designed to no mather what outcome it would give, to contradict common modern day physics in the way people see it. essentially if it works it is a "free energy generator", if it doesn't work than all the basic mathmatic and physics aproaches surrounding gravity which you typically get to learn at school are completely wrong. if it does neither then it either means it is working but there is to much friction, or something very odd has happened which agains would likely break physics. the mashine itself (DFEM(aka. time geometric change mashine)) is actually rather simple yet very different from other attempts at such "free energy masines" both in how it came to be since it is designed to just show people to not assume things and instead be open to change and thinking for themselves or even better feeling. but it's working is also different, since you can't actually build the mashine yourself, since it can only partly exist in one moment, so instead you make a mashine/part of it, wich will then morph/make the full mashine while it is running. or in simple words, it isn't a 3dimensional mashine but instead is a 4 dimensional mashine, or a 4d geometry. the energy generated when working would be passive gravity energy turned into active energy, and in case no gravity energy is lost it would actually create energy. the thing is when including a 4th or 5th or 6th dimension basically none of modern day physics still works correctly, and in many cases it allows you to do things that seem completely impossible acoarding to physics, this is also how you can find stupid people who happen to know a lot since they won't be able to understand there is more and instead will keep citing other peoples words and rules to claim something can't and even when you got it working and show them instead they will just seek how you might have faked it even if all points at it working and not concidering that it might actually work, until some big institution tells them to beleive it then they will blindly beleive and obey it and bring it up everywhere to try to say that things they don't yet know can't be done. even have had people who cited some old theory which I actually originally designed(got stolen by a classmate who didn't have a proper project done) to try and disprove something I said regarding that area, while in reality the theory that person stole and the one those people cite was actually not the real full theory, instead it was a theory meant more to be a easy to understand marketing speech for the presentation at the fair.
Пікірлер: 1,8 М.