Hey there Emergence...one thing that I would like to see on your channel would be a listing of your lecture sources and a possible date (year and month?) as sometimes, especially with my favorite lecturer Leonard Susskind I see some older lectures that I can't place...as I am huge fan and often try to find his latest stuff. When is this from? Thanks kindly and regardless keep posting these brilliant lectures and ideas....
In fact, George Lemaître used the cosmological constant in 1933 for his "primeval atom" theory which is the essence of the Big Bang theory. He interpreted the CC as vacuum energy and introduced a simple version of the equation of state we use today - p = -rho.
13:03 Instead of submarine call it a pub crawl bus. The bus travels in antidesitter space between desitter pubs which are located in rural flat minkowski space fields. The pubs are all entangled by the legendary pub crawlers Juan and Leonard, leaving hefty unpaid tabs which cause the pubs to collapse into singularities.
What form the gravitational wave? We know what form sea waves, sound waves, but what about gravitational waves? Are gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves produced by the same field?
All this parameters and equations look like breathing of something ideal and super harmonic in its nature like as if "it" were alive. The process itself can't be chaotic in its nature since it's so fine tuned. There must be something in the field itself (property) giving this "inexplicity". It's created to observe, describe but not to explain in terms of "why".
At the singularity there’s infinite density which has enough gravity to account for gravitational lensing when combined with the known amount of matter and mass of the galaxy. There’s no need for invisible matter. It’s all there in and around the singularity. What’s not being taken into consideration is the variable of the measures of time and distance the farther away from a singularity it is. It is actually changing the speed of light from place to place. The speed of light is faster in the outer edges than it is near the center causing the lens effect just like a glass lens that slows down light near the center and allows for light to travel faster in the outer edges.
Expansion energy may have been greater early in the development. This would explain differential expansion over time. One problem cosmologists face is interpreting the meaning of what they see.
Could dark energy be the gravitational pull of our parent universe. But if we are in a black hole, our parent's gravity is apearing to us as repulsive. I hope it makes sense.
The first minute says it all, then Susskind goes into Dirac & Pauli.... This video is oblivious to the concept of inversion physics...Edward Teller also says it all in his video about attending an Einstein lecture ... Teller is telling folks that this video is just describing today's 'the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin'... (again, this just my & Teller's opinion about 'the current conventional wisdom of experts'...) ... That said, Leonard Susskind is a talented communicator and educator. I think he should seriously examine the insight of inversion physics.
Dark energy is actually Ether , not 7:33 the kind of Ether which Michelson and Morley postualted which is fixed ether , rather this ether is superfluid in nature and dark energy is the energy density of this cosmic superfluid ether , This is exactly what Nikola Tesla said .
Could dark energy be the gravitational pull of our parent univers? Like in black hole things are pulled in by gravity. But from the point of view of the singularity, all is moving away from it self. (Nothing can fall faster that the speed of light. Nothing can catch up with the center. Each thing falls on itself. )
More likely, "dark energy" is a manifestation of "anti-gravity". We have been trained to accept that gravity is only an attractive force, unlike its brethren "fundamental force" of electromagnetism that is both attractive and repulsive but essentially obeys the same inverse-square force law. In this case, and despite the unproven conjecture that gravity is mediated by a spin-2 force mediator (the "graviton"), there is no reason to believe that it is only an attractive force. Hence, quantum theories of gravity based on this assumption may be misleading, albeit there is exactly zero empirical evidence at all that gravity is a quantum force as the other 3 fundamental forces have been proven to be. If gravity is both attractive and repulsive, and if it is quantum, then its force mediator would be a spin-1 boson (as is the mediator of electromagnetism, which is the spin-1 photon). Therefore, physicists may be looking in all the wrong places, and string theory is nothing more than a huge pile of crap that has consumed the minds of several generations of physicists who might have been spending their efforts on useful pursuits.
Just saying "there is energy in the vacuum", does not make it real. And manipulating physics/math with so called "constants" to prove zpm, also does not make it real. Constants are obsevations, NOT explanations. It's hard to believe that something came from nothing, but here we are!
What replaces the cosmological constant? The Cosmological Coriolus. When you realize that dark energy has to be SPIN, because of orbital structures, then the field equations are made redundant. But first your need to solve for the rotational curves of galaxies problem in a purely Newtonian paradigm, or else you have no genuine euclidean foundation to begin with. And before you do that you need to realize that time must be immaculate due to the 'Dilation of Time Conundrum'.
@@colinhughes6635Thanks, I know the definition of a bell curve, a multivariate normal distribution, a Gaussian distribution. My question is, what is he referring to as Gaussian/Normal/Bell curve??
Susskind is a wordsmith quack. Actually a confused brainiak, awry with tangential speculation, and run on rhetoric designed to earn $ from the ignorant and confused student.
If you think about it, we do not exist at the speed of light the way the way a photon does because we have mass. We see things taking time to take place because the greater amount of matter and mass in the vicinity slows down time for things with mass. The effect also contracts distance for things to take place in a place where there is measurable time and distance. This only happens where there is gravity to slow down time and contract distance for things with mass. Gravity drops off exponentially outside of galaxies which which means that time is greatly accelerated and distance is greatly expanded according to our observations inside of a galaxy inside off a solar system. This allows for light to arrive instantaneously from distant galaxies.
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity and Accelerated Expansion - 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Gravitation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void, Accelerated Expansion and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
First of all: thank you for your contribution. I'll have to study your source...a couple of times. But. You seemed to have dug into it (and I am delighted to have found a soul who actually acknowledges that space-time itself might have "properties" instead of wildly postulating "particles" and "interactions" we have no empirical evidence of) - so what is your take on the (silly) discussion that albeit we measure(!) a lower expansion rate of the universe when we look at the past as opposed to the current rate (the so called "Hubble-Tension") - while certainly not proportional to the size of the universe (as your formular suggests) it is nonetheless not constant. When we look at the CMB, it is around 67 km/s per Mpc, now it seems to be around 70-72 km/s per Mpc. In other words: the Hubble-Constant is not a constant, but an essential parameter of the world we're living in. But why is it not simply proportional to the space contained in our universe?
Einstein 's constant shape the potential surface with the geometry we have convention dark ,negative with confocal view . We like these bullet from a experience mentor who is among us.most of the time I could not reach his thoughts and feel myself out of bubble. Thank you.
In the cosmic theater, Susskind takes the stage, With words that weave a scientific sage, Dark energy, the enigmatic force, Unveiling mysteries, charting a new course. Astonishing lecture, a profound ballet, Where concepts dance in a luminous display, In whispered realms of quantum debate, Dark energy's secrets, in his words, await. With eloquence, he paints the cosmic sky, Galaxies whirl, an endless, starry supply, Expanding horizons, in an infinite race, Dark energy’s hand, a mysterious embrace. A fabric of space, in his careful hand, Unraveling dimensions, a cosmic strand, Invisible threads, that pull and push, Unveiling secrets, a reality to brush. He speaks of the void, the unseen force, Whispers in equations, a mystical course, How galaxies drift, in a cosmic waltz, Dark energy’s sway, the universe exalts. With passion and fervor, Susskind reveals, A symphony of particles, the cosmos kneels, Mysteries unfold in his words, aglow, Dark energy's tale, in his lecture’s flow. With each uttered phrase, a stellar array, A narrative etched in the cosmic play, Susskind, the bard of the scientific stage, Dark energy's tale, his words engage. His lecture, a canvas, with theories strewn, A vision of the universe, an infinite rune, As Leonard Susskind in wisdom stands, Dark energy’s secrets in his hands.
Am I glad to live in a stable submarine, even though that means I can't see all that much. The universe is simply structured in a way that makes it fundamentally impossible to comprehend. Which is a comforting answer to the old philosophical question "Is there a limit of knowledge we can gather about the world?" - the answer seems to be "yes" but it has nothing to do with being human or having limited capabilities: the universe is incromprehensible regardless of the minds it enables. Thus: the submarine should be yellow.
My theory is spacetime actually goes slightly the other way that you expect in open space. Galexies cross the zero line somewhere around the edges. This may come from antimatter somewhere that make it do that, or maybe open space is just positive for some reason.
There seem two types of fundamental constants in nature: Those which are constant not only in our universe but across universes in the multiverse such as c (speed of light) or h (Planck's constant). Then there are others such as L (lambda) which seems different in each universe so that the entropic principle can get to work and select ours in a Darwinian way. Is this correct and if so what is the justification?
Are you describing the reason for the universe being persistence of the past verses change of the future all balanced as now for now? No your answers is bigger but that’s what I see. No really, it would not surprise me if your answer of a fine tuning issue being a prime motivator to drive the universe, would lead to my answer. The universe is not done.
Imagine a smooth dense gas/plasma Now if a sound wave travels through this dense plasma there will be regions of compression and rarefaction. In areas of compression there will be more matter that will attract each other and matter in rarefaction region will start accelerating towards the dense region. This empties out the rarefacted region to a point where the plasma converts to atomic hydrogen and allows light to travel for the first time. this rarified region between two dense compression region has a point where the net gravity of the compression regions cancel out , but at all other points the net acceleration increases as we go towards the compression region. So if you are sitting in this rarified region you will see everything going away from you , and the further the object the faster it's accelerating away from you. The rarified region is so large that you don't see the compressef regions and you call this phenomenon as dark energy. This would be a simple explanation for dark energy which is probably wrong ....would love to hear from anyone....why I am wrong. Thanks for listening to me
Not gravity, its mass. I'm sure. Remenber, mass is responsible for the curvature of space. Light is being pushed, not pulled. The interesting thing is, in either case, light continues its original path. Why? It's clear to me because of the fundamental law of physics that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, a principle articulated by Galileo. In other words, its undeflectable. Then, again, why?
Making the model dependent on 'tunneling' makes the model completely QM, which is not yet a theory but a set of rules, making our model with what seems to be without any knowledge of gravity.
QM is only a set of rules if you are sticking with Copenhagen which is a curious thing for someone to do at this point if they are interested in subjects like these
In this case tunneling describes how the vacuum energy state transitions from metastable to stable. It needs to transition over a higher energy state or tunnel through it. I recommend reading about false vacuum decay en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum_decay
The universe is so mindblowing and pretty much just exists as some sort of "model" for us. We try to explain it in our scales and tend to build a Newton stage, in order to describe it. The latest discoveries are impressive, but i personally think, that we only scratched the whole thing so far. We are limited by our horizon of view and electro-magnetic tools to measure. Sure, we have several options/theories to explain the evolution of the universe, but we may never will be able to find out, what really happened before the quarks and gluons combined. Also the concept of a tiny point, containing all energy is hard to believe, imo. In fact, we have absolutly no clue, how much time passed before that and how big the universe already was, at that stage. Personally, i have problems with nearly all theories and tend more to an onion model, creating radiation in pulses, right from the center - yes, our universe is flat, but maybe it´s so huge already, that we can´t even measure the curvage anymore...A smart scientist may could proof me wrong, but it could explain so much issues with the expansion. No matter, what model we prefer, it´s obvious that we miss a huge player in this orchestra, hitting hundreds of critical numbers, to make the universe as stable as it is today.
Please help dispel the salacious rumor that even ambidextrous astrophysicists can't find more than 4.8% of their...... Please contribute to the purchase of a cattle farm where they can otherwise put their exceptional talents to use.
The Magna Carta requires now overhauling - adding to it the right for humans to understand what Energy really is; "In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
Dark Energy and Dark Matter May Be Anti Gravity. This drawing makes a case for anti gravity, not gravity, as the force that comes from acceleration. Einstein recognized that acceleration was equivalent to the force of gravity. He said that this was the happiest thought of his life. Had he known that 95% of the universe was not matter but Dark Energy and Dark Matter, he would have recognized that acceleration was the equivalent to the force of ANTI GRAVITY. He would have seen that it wasn't gravity from matter; but anti gravity from empty space that was the force. The diagram shows how dark energy and dark matter from empty space push back more and more against matter as it accelerates. Top, the globe has no acceleration. Next picture, there is some acceleration and the arrows show resistance from empty space as the globe moves forward. Finally as the globe approaches the speed of light, the resistance from empty space becomes massive and approaches infinite. No matter can travel at the speed of light. DARK ENERGY; Dark energy is energy that expands. In every part of the universe. It acts like anti gravity and is associated with the vacuum of space. My Suggestion is that this is a force of anti gravity expansion. DARK MATTER ; Dark matter is labeled as a gravitational pull. Yet there are no baryons - no matter - that's been found to do the pulling. Many physicists are looking for the missing matter. My suggestion is the obvious - it's not there! The force is anti gravity that we know is there. That means dark energy and dark matter are the same thing. They are both antigravity. Together dark energy and dark matter, or both together as anti gravity, represent 95% of the universe and they represent a single expansion force everywhere. Finally this may well be the same force that began with the Big Bang expansion, Here is a diagram showing the make up of the universe. 95% anti gravity (dark energy + dark matter) and 5% hydrogen and helium gas, stars, neutrinos, and all other atoms combined. ANTIGRAVITY 95% STARS, ETC. 5% 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 1234567890 12345. 12345 *** Here's some support. There is a cosmological redshift that comes from the expansion of space itself. The galaxies are not moving, but the intervening space is stretching. *** What is dark energy in simple terms? Think of dark energy as the "evil counterpart" to gravity-an "anti-gravity" force providing a negative pressure that fills the universe and stretches the very fabric of spacetime. As it does so dark energy drives cosmic objects apart at an increasingly rapid rate rather than drawing them together as gravity does.Nov 24, 2022 What is dark energy? - Space.com
Neutron decay cosmology A homeostatic universe maintained by gravity flow to maxima, electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids. Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. The Hubble Doppler is a geometric artifact of the curvature of spacetime we expect from the mass of the universe affecting the only dimension it can, frequency. The universe is infinite and the greater mass as distance from observer increases mass between them increases creating a curve between. Neutron in at event horizon Drops kinetic energy off as mass for event horizon Takes ER bridge from highest energy presssure to lowest energy density point Deep void There the neutron re-emerges and soon decays Into Dark matter. Amorphous monatomic hydrogen No stable orbital so no photon interaction. Decay from 0.6fm^3 neutron to 1m^3 of hydrogen is a volume increase Expansion. Of 10^45 or so in volume. Dark energy. And since volume increase, temperature decrease. PV=nRT No wonder space is still cold.
I would like to see an investigation into sub-luminal (less than light speed) inflation as I suspect that INFLATION did NOT exceed the speed of light! If that sort of handshakes with the current Universe as we see it, it would make sense to me. This could also back up the recent re-aging of the observable Universe from 13.8 billion years to 26.7 or 27.Billion years or so...maybe more!
Ultimate answers we need to know so the human race can take off the chains of Mythology of course with that could lead to the extinction of theism Cosmological area totally separate from Manmade Theological Mythologies the Intelligent Design Hypothesis for the cosmos is a possibility among a multitude of possibilities Random Natural Processes is another possibility pre existing universes multi universes infinite space so much we still don't know
I don't want to be alarmist but Prof Susskind's writing of those equations on the projector are very suspect and jittery. It [might] suggest early Parkinson's to me. My aunt had it and that is exactly what her writing looked like a couple of years before her diagnosis. I hope he is OK.
We use mathematics to describe things we do not understand routinely. Ironically enough, the explanation you offered for “Dark Energy” is itself a premise based purely on the application of mathematics. Finally, all logical questions are math problems seeking solution.
No, it is not purely mathematical. The mathematics of Dark Energy describes what we learned about the accelerated expansion of the universe *_from observation,_* even if originally it was just a purely hypothetical "fudge factor" proposed by Einstein for a different purpose. In 2011, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess won the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of that accelerated expansion, mostly by observing distant Supernovae.
I like the anthropic principle. I realized, some time ago, that this is probably the answer (to everything). Let's start with something close to the subject of this video: How likely is a universe like ours? Then, even given this universe, how likely is it that you exist? Here, start by thinking about that one sperm that fertilized your mother's egg - how critical was the timing and how critical was every single event that led up to it? Then, how critical was every event in your parents' lives that led up to that moment (including all their interactions with other people, the weather, each minute of their lives, etc)? Then think how the same thing applies to every ancestor of theirs, all the way back to way before the time of humans or even mammals, and beyond. You godda admit, it's all absolutely, absurdly improbable... right? But is it really? I think not. You (and I) exist simply because it is possible. It's not the result of an infinitesimally small chance. In fact, the odds were always 1:1 (100%). What is possible will be. Twas always thus and always will be. If we don't get to meet up in this one, see you in another. 😉
So far as I can tell, the anthropic principle can't be falsified. It's a never fail. Which means that it's not actually a principle, but a modality of inquiry-a modality of inquiry where every fine tuning problem can be solved by cherry picking the right marble machine, out of an infinite hat of possible marble machines. Need a marble machine for p = 10^-123? Not a problem. Coming right up. Check out our vast catalog of 10^500 different marble machines. That hat would be borderline infinite. But it's not even necessarily the right hat. There's another hat that contains hats, and some of those hats are capacious, to say the least. 10^500 might actually be a rather puny hat. Paging Ray Solomonoff to estimate the marble machine spectra.
Yes, the universe just started last week. Randomly, in the infinite span of time, all the atoms in the universe suddenly quantum tunneled into the right place six days ago to create the universe as we see it right now.
@@afterthesmash I think there is a space in science to disprove anthropic arguments. Setting boundaries for certain variables can reduce the space of possibilities for a lot of things. But with things like inflationary multiverse, there are ideas that bubble universes will have their own measures for nature's constants.
Why would making a suitable "cage" for hewed-men to run around on attempting to avoid the impossible-to- predict, as-if prime number maze, unpleasant surprises be so universally labeled "anthropic" (by those who think the apparent fine-tuning indicates the work of intention) when the empirical image manifested here could just as easily be taken as resson enough to dub the handiwork to be MISANTHROPIC?
I dislike graphs. I do understand the use. Feynman could see things in his minds eye. To take all the observations, math, philosophy and just be in it. Thank you yet again Leonard for a your interpretations. You are very interesting to listen to.. You brought many things to the dinner table on this one.
Dr Turok has a solution for zero-point vacuum energy being infinite. fwiw I am so distracted by your background music I cannot watch your video beyond a few minutes, sorry.
My hypothesis 13:00 the dust in the proto-planetary disk formed by absorption and reflection of sunlight. Creating a sieve to separate light from heavy atoms/molecules/little submarines. Mercury heavy metals to Neptune hydrogen/helium.
It comes out infinite means you can quantum entangle dark energy without regards to time. Your equations are ok. But your understanding is a bit lacking. That’s what my two papers were attempting to explain. It comes out infinite because it’s not bound by our 3 dimensional space which means you can entangle it. That why you can teleport photons with an iPhone at least the ones with the synthetic sapphire lens. That’s how I communicate with my drones and satellites in outer space. It the same thing that causes the photo electric effect like Einstein said. You can teleport photons and electrons but when you “snap to” entanglement with the lens of your phone there is some radiation involved that is the description that Einstein gave that won him the Noble prize. At least I can anyway. It’s the same principle that would allow you to create a dark energy telescope that could scan the surface of what it is you entangle. For instance QE (short for quantum entanglement) - using this principle you can entangle your phone crystalline lens with the sun using an aperture in a door and scan the area of the sun. At least the side facing your location in this case earth. I have a video of this. I’ll post it along with this comment in the description. I don’t know how else to describe this.
Dr. Mills predicted the acceleration of the universe before it was observed. That is because he realized that there is no dark energy, space is simply returning to its natural form as matter is converted back into energy.
A problem with the anthropic principle and specifying parameters for fine tuning is that prevalent scientific ideas on the origin of life are all of the reductive materialist sort. These ideas provide no good scientific explanation of consciousness, and furthermore see it as an effect of living things, not a contributing cause. This error leads to endless unsolvable problems, obtuse mathematical constructs, and interesting lectures by brilliant thinkers who can not get past their premises.
@@morphixnm No jerking of the knee and no "scientism." You are simply saying silly things, and no one with real knowledge of the subject will take you seriously. There, I used more words. Happy?
This man is giving lectures while operating “in the dark”. I can tell by how he opens this lecture in the first 1:30. Any physicist who uses Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as a basis to try and estimate the value of Zero Point Energy is going down the wrong path. And then following that up by focusing on the Anthropic Principle….this is not real astrophysics. This is just side bar philosophy having to do with astrophysics. Good coffee table talk….that’s about it.
There is only one reason to postulate dark energy, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929 and the exponential aspect was discovered in 1998. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. If something accelerates at a constant rate it will get faster and faster. The exponential expansion rate of the universe is what the known laws of physics would predict provided gravitational forces are not strong enough to counteract the process. Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion was a fundamental property of the universe. The fact that it is increasing doesn't invalidate their reasoning. All attempts to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist
@@alexbenzie6585 It's fundamental physics. If a ship leaves the Earth traveling at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would reach 95% light speed after 1 year. Do some research before you make comments
I am sure that the thousands of physicists who are geniuses in their field and accomplished mathematicians are wrong and this RU-vid commenter has figured it out
Hello I honestly believe that the problem with trying to define what Dark Matter and Dark Energ are, is the mathematics that is being used. It is not a mathematical problem, because we do not have parameters of the Dark Matter particles to construct the matematics to define it in precisely. The problem is a logic problem, and it is unbelievably simple.The Dark Matter is an icredibly small negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which in a cloud fills every space throughout the universe that is not the nucleus. The negative force of repulsion that is produced by every particle trying to repel each other in every direction, is the Dark Energy, which is one of the two forces of gravity.
Hello Trout, thank you for your reply. Yes you are right, it is completely my own hypothesis, which I have a paper at the Royal Society being looked at at the present time. I respect the ability of mathematicians, but the above video highlights how rediculously complicated things have become, at the expence of common sence and logic. There is no scientific evidence for any of the particles in the standard model, the only thing you can say, is that they are pieces broken off of atoms during collider collisions. I can prove the existence of the particles I quote, and the force they exert with the following very simple experiment. A very simple experiment to show a repulsive force is as follows. Take two pieces of A4 paper that are completely flat and not under any stress from bending. Cut a strip lengthways from the pair about 1 ¼ inches wide. Cut 3 or 4 smaller pieces from a similar strip to form squares, and place these between the two long strips at one end. Make a hole through the middle of the square of this top section, through which you can pass a suitable thin rod that allows the strips to swing freely. Make sure that the top pieces are pushed tight together, so that the strips hang freely down parallel to each other. Place these in a long glass vessel, such as a spaghetti jar, so that they are not influenced by air currents, cover if you think appropriate. You will notice that the gap between the two strips is slightly larger at the bottom than at the top. If the spacer between the two strips is too small, the two strips will be pulled and pushed together. This I believe shows that there does exist the negative force of repulsion acting in every direction due to the existence of proposed ‘ Dark Matter ‘ ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud producing the ‘ Dark Energy ‘ repulsive force . Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 - Here's my own hypothesis: Excessive verbage attempting to explain something in the RU-vid COMMENT SECTION (take notice of this emphasis) frequently indicates some non-zero degree of delusion and madness. Kind regards, Concerned Viewer
Saying: "If something comes out as infinite, that doesn't mean it is zero" is not as sharp or intelligent as saying, "the model is wrong, and vacuum energy cannot be a thing." That is how one learns from mistakes (a.k.a. a theory where infinities are everywhere). Dr. Susskind didn't learn that from his recollections of the 1930's. If you want to understand the universe... if you want to derive the Cosmic Distance Ladder from first principles... if you want to see the explanation for the spiral galaxy rotation curve conundrum without dark stuff... if you want to understand how a theory (the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory) can explain everything we are seeing in JWST (in fact, the author predicted this many years ago)... then you just have to google hypergeometrical universe theory achievements. You will be glad not to have to accept handwaving explanations and live as a gullible person.
So the reason laymen watch these videos is to learn about the state of modern physics (same reason I watch them, but my cosmology lecturer was better than Lenny)….so you coming here with your crackpot theory…it’s like a vegan posting in a BBQ channel. Just don’t.
The biggest mistake made by Lenny is to claim that his family name is pronounced "suss kind". Just to annoy him I will from now on say it the way it is supposed to: Süsskind. Great lecture though, despite being a tad patronizing.
Multiverse mother: jehovah, stop playing with your universe and do your chores. God: but look 👀 Mom, if I get the scalar instaton to tunnel it makes bubbles! MVM: you’re trying to make creatures in your image again…we talked about this. Wait till your father gets home. God: (oh 💩, wait till she finds out I have Son)
Great physicists were almost all very young men - not bitter math experts like Suskind (or half a hundred other like him (no, no women)). Sorry, but it's the truth. Refute if ye can.
I know, right? And why doesn't Messi just kick the ball into the crowd instead of all that dribbling and goal scoring mumbo jumbo? These people are so overrated.
