The worst prediction in physics

[@adrianoaxel1196]

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

[@clsanchez77]

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

[@James-ll3jb]

😅

[@Tinil0]

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

[@clsanchez77]

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

[@hajinezhad3]

That might explain why doors are flying off our planes.

[@Ostinat0]

"It's important for a scientist talking about speculative ideas to remember to not believe what they think" is something that should be taught in high school. Bless you for saying this!

[@timalderson19]

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

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

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

[@spvillano]

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

[@jeebusk]

Sound canceling?

[@sf4137]

@@jeebusk Yep.

[@thomasquwack9503]

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

[@timehaley]

42 is starting to look more and more correct.

[@anonymes2884]

Time to start working on the question.

[@comlitbeta7532]

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

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

It is not incorrect, but what is the question.

[@peterfireflylund]

What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

[@poudink5791]

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

[@scotthammond3230]

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

[@crazieeez]

Or string theory :)

[@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer]

I think knot@@crazieeez

[@nox6438]

hehehehe@@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer

[@isomeme]

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

[@erichodge567]

Man, that was precisely my thought, too!

[@jerelull9629]

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

[@pinkfongbabyshark-kidssong8533]

Physic is simple tho

[@hamentaschen]

Hi Dr. Don. You rock dude.

[@Vatsek]

No dude, you rock!

[@marioluna2957]

Santa Lincoln roared 👍

[@ShaheenGhiassy]

+1

[@soaringvulture]

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

[@jeffspaulding9834]

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

[@道芊櫳]

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

[@juzoli]

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

[@Takyodor2]

🥦

[@petermainwaringsx]

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

[@thorr18BEM]

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

[@kubhlaikhan2015]

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

[@infinityessentials]

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

[@petemack3076]

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

[@giorgiobarchiesi5003]

I was about to say exactly the same. 👍

[@firstnamelastname7941]

That is what I was thinking.

[@qevvy]

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

[@LuisAldamiz]

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

[@chaosburger307]

I was thinking it seem analogous. It seems those low frequency stacking is a problem and other physics stops it. This is lay person conjecture, but it also seems similar to the mystery of matter or how matter and anti-matter canceled except a small percentage did not.

[@ywtcc]

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

[@adventureswithfrodo2721]

The heart of science is don't know.

[@tlwmdbt]

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

[@JonBrase]

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

[@charlesbrightman4237]

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

[@Aracuss]

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

[@planetsaturn1300]

QUESTION: Are you using ‘the theory of relativity’ (the maths) to ask what the energy density of empty space is, or are you determining the energy density through astronomical observations? (or both?) ie. is the acceleration of the expansion of the universe a consequence of the theory of relativity or a consequence of astronomical observations?

[@stargazer7644]

He's calculating what the value of the cosmological constant has to be to be consistent with our observations of the universe. GR does not give a value for this constant.

[@NouveauAlchemist]

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

[@aewcac]

Unifying Field Theory Solutions 1. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmOWonmDj9Cqbrs 2. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f33QZ3mlp8-tsK8

[@Geotku]

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

[@ThomasJr]

not really, Brillian has a paywall, this doesn't.

[@waverod9275]

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

[@Aracuss]

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

[@dagnation9397]

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

[@entcraft44]

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

[@reverseuniverse2559]

Electric universe ⚡️

[@rohanking12able]

​@@Aracussnothing exist outside of something.

[@bothewolf3466]

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

[@patricklincoln5942]

Who is Lincoln? Who are you writing to?

[@bothewolf3466]

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

[@mygirldarby]

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

[@patricklincoln5942]

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

[@rfichokeofdestiny]

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

[@googleyoutubechannel8554]

What theory of physics underpins the idea of 'empty space' as meaningful?

[@paulbporter1090]

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

[@GradyPhilpott]

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

[@gettaasteroid4650]

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

[@BlackShardStudio]

Quentin Tarantino's favorite game

FFS

[@isomeme]

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

[@davidetomsu]

Again, thank you, the public needs to hear your voice and others like you. We need scientists to be honest like this too, and humble before the great mysteries of the cosmos. Always let's keep the basic questions alive

[@terekrutherford8879]

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

[@linuxificator]

First of all: the relativistic answer is based on an observation, GR doesn't predict any empty space energy. And second, measurements of the casimir force give us a practical indication of the energy and thereby proove that the QM theoretical approach is wrong. So you are not comparing two theories, you are comparing a (possibly wrong) conclusion of an oberservation to a definitely wrong theoretical result.

[@Hovado_Lesni]

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

[@jeebusk]

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

[@oldnordy2665]

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

[@f.austin]

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

[@DrBeah]

How do they justify adding all energy states together including the highest energy states. Shouldn't they consider the relative population of states? In other words, wouldn't it be more likely for lower energy states to pop up rather than higher?

[@UNKNOWNPERSON-kk9kd]

I'm with you on that. Makes no sense why they feel they need to add together everything "possible" when they're talking about probabilistic concepts like "virtual particles", fields, and blah, blah, blah.

[@florinadrian5174]

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

[@araripealexandre]

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

[@fortyofforty5257]

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

[@TomHendricksMusea]

This will challenge a lot of physics on both sides and connect them through photon singularity. Summary Here are the key components of all my physics posts. Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. Neutrons may be unstable protons. Protons, for the most part could only be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang. The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing. Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The universe is 5% charged matter and 95% neutral force. Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space. Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space. The cosmological redshift supports this. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same. The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. Time has speed limits up to the speed of light. 95% of the universe seems to be without charge, detectable matter, or gravity: dark energy plus dark matter. The universe is open ended and will continue to expand.

[@a.hardin620]

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

[@josefanon8504]

yea, it has too many variables

[@TheFritz423]

Seems like the curvature of space-time would diminish as the distance between objects increased. This might create the illusion of acceleration as objects reached areas of less curvature, like traveling at a constant speed on a winding road generally heading east versus a straight highway going due east.

[@Takyodor2]

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

[@BlackShardStudio]

"Wake up, Neo..."

[@rogerkearns8094]

If only the universe program code were annotated...

[@cosmicraysshotsintothelight]

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

[@LarryBorsinger]

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

[@thalikoth6171]

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

[@kpaasial]

I've always had a problem with the Planck length cut-off that is used to avoid the infinity that would otherwise result. It seems very much a "hack" to avoid admitting that the model itself might be totally flawed.

[@abebuckingham8198]

We assumed that the infinities would exist at first but it didn't match experimental results.

[@E.DougK.]

0:10 There can be no contributions below the Planck length because the theory based on it wouldn’t work? Does reality just stop? Could someone recommend a good video explaining the sources and the consequences of the infinities alluded to? Thank you.

[@E.DougK.]

I guess I was venting like a layman circa 1900 demanding that if there is an “ultraviolet catastrophe”, then what is the answer? Just need to make a simple, but surprising guess I suppose. The rest, as they say, is just math.

[@JonBrase]

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

[@EMLtheViewer]

ah yes, fizzicks

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

Not as stupid as it sounds.

[@digitalife8719]

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

[@abebuckingham8198]

@@digitalife8719 that's the joke.

[@AFNacapella]

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

[@waynemorellini2110]

5:03 (A speculative answer which suits both models of physics, at the end). This sounds like my speculation I wrote about 11 days ago, which goes onto traversing the chain of frequencies to come to islands where some functional structure of a reality can exist, even replicas of our own, if no quanta limit exists. It goes with my continual expansion hypotheses. Actually here, with some corrections: "This is like mine. It depends on how the universe is structured. If there is no quanta, there is no limit to the size of wave information. Which means, infinite wave forms below what we can observe. Wave forms are not empty, but are structure, which is energy, and as waveforms decrease in width they increase in relative energy. Quanta, may merely be an island of waveform which appears to us like a solid base, but is what can be expected in mathematics. At points down the waveform sizes, different resultant structures will appear with an apparent base, repeatedly. The only way to prove, is to travel the waveform set. Which is possible. However, will apparent variation hinder this, until you reach a relatively stable travel set of waveforms, or structure. This also will mean that the rate of change relative to each apparent base on the way down, will increase in frequency (Time) making such journeys irrelevant, reducing the likelihood of return, except as a sample. We would not normally directly detect this energy due to the averaging out of structures, making deep structures have little direct effect on us. However, we can draw upon the energy to make a negative flow up the frequency chain to us, or without a change in frequency, requiring a selection of sub-structure towards us, to maintain its definition, in order to do useful work, and not appear as an average. These are the sorts of things sort. Beyond a type omega minus civilization." The Answer may be as simple as, there is infinitive energy in space which produces drag on photons relative to the frequency of the photon to each waveform of empty space. This drag, produces a force upon the structure of the waveforms, and potentially some absorption. This drag is relative to the 4 hydrogen atoms of force in relativity. Thus, the two models go together. In such a case (as above), we can expect an uneven effect, as the effect is driven by the uneven distribution of forces and photons across empty space. We can expect subtle, local environment driven effects in different parts of the universe. Which can be sought to substantiate this hypothesis.

[@chrisl7839]

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

[@vothaison]

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

[@stunimbus1543]

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

[@gavinwince]

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

[@cosmicraysshotsintothelight]

Top Quark!

[@Vatsek]

The Hubble and the JWST telescope cosmological constants are different.

[@cosmicraysshotsintothelight]

@@VatsekConstantly so.

[@gavinwince]

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

[@gavinwince]

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

[@alexkalish8288]

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

[@friendlyone2706]

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

[@glasses685]

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

[@Paine137]

Casimir Effect

[@anonymes2884]

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

[@ayoutubechannelname]

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

[@konayasai]

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

[@abebuckingham8198]

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

[@kennethcole1551]

Einstein explained in his paper on special relativity and the problem with space for one object there is no space or time for to objects you can lay down equally leaf measuring rods And then measure the space between them you can count to Ticks 5:12 the clock and measure how long it took to lay down the rods. Therefore space and time are measurements if there’s cannot be anything in space because the space that’s in between things. Time is the measurement of events the clock is used. To measure between events

[@jjeherrera]

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

[@undercoveragent9889]

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

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

6:44 Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference (|a|=g).That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the strong equivalence principle. {According to general estimates, this acceleration is: |a|=πcH: the equations of the gravitational field can be arrived at based on the Poisson equation ∆ф=4πGp, and for a weakly curved metric, the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)=pc^2. Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor. This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2, where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. And according to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a|=πcH.} Then the energy density of the relic radiation, that is, the evolving primary gravitational-inertial field (= space-time): J= g^2/8πG=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4~1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (about 500 quanta/cm^3).* P.S. You can also use the Unruh formula, but with the addition of the coefficient q, which determines the number of phase transitions of the evolving system for the case of variable acceleration: q=√n'=λrelic /√8λpl , , where n'=L/8πr(pl) is the number of semi-orbits; L=c/H, is the length of the phase trajectory.** Thus, T*(relic)=[q]ħa/2πkc (=0.4K), which is in order of magnitude consistent with the real: T(relic)/T*(relic)=2,7/0,4=6,7. However, there is no need to have a factor of 1/2π in the Unruh formula in this case. ------------ *) - w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H, |a|=r(pl)w(relic)^2 =g=πcH, intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=(c^2)/2(√8n')=πGmpl/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = (½)S(pl)w(pl) = h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H; { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. From Kepler's third law follows: M/t=v^3/G, where M/t=I(G)=[gram•sec^-1] is the gravitational current. In the case of the Universe, I(G)=MH=c^3/8πG (~ the "dark energy" constant). **) - n' =4,28*10^61; w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old! The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. Addition In an arbitrary non-inertial reference frame, the equation of the total mechanical energy of a particle system is: ∆E=A(internal)+A(external)+A*, where A (internal) is the work of internal dissipative forces, А(external) is the work of external non-conservative forces, А* is the work of inertia forces. In order to preserve the mechanical energy of the system in a non-inertial frame of reference, it is necessary that ∆E =0, however, in an arbitrary non-inertial frame of reference, it is impossible to create a condition for fulfilling this requirement; that is, ∆E does not =0 in any way (by the way, in system C, the condition for fulfilling the laws of conservation of momentum and angular momentum does not depend on whether this system is an inertial or non-inertial frame of reference).

[@sujithgk]

Fan of Dr. Don Lincoln 🙌🏻

[@StephenFrei-qo6ru]

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

[@wingoreviewsboxingandmma3667]

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

[@ayatokzorro]

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

[@phatnoir1986]

You talk about the predictions of these models. What do we observe? Which model is 'closer' to observation?

[@jyrinx]

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

[@josefanon8504]

lmao

[@shawns0762]

There is no dark energy. There is only one reason to postulate it, to explain the exponential expansion rate of the universe. The expansion was discovered in 1929. The concept of dark energy became mainstream after 1998 when it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating. If something accelerates at a constant rate, it will get faster and faster. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. The fact that the expansion is accelerating is what the known laws of physics would predict provided gravitational forces are not strong enough to counteract the process. Electricity is drawn towards potential and the universe as a whole behaves the same way. Electricity comes into our homes because the neutral circuit provides the potential. Electricity is drawn towards grounding rods for the same reason. Physicists in the last century did not postulate dark energy because they understood that the expansion is a fundamental property of the universe. To say there is dark energy is to say there is 5 fundamental forces, there is 4. All studies to find dark energy have been fruitless because it doesn't exist

[@yad-thaddag]

I still miss his moustache

[@TommiV226]

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

[@q-tuber7034]

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

[@lawrencenoyman350]

But it's more important to be crazy enough.

[@debrainwasher]

Not only GR (General Relativity) and quantum physics show different zero point energy levels of spacetime, but also objets on a galactic scale resist to obey Newtonian and GR laws. So, inner parts of a galaxy should spin faster than outer regions, but they don't. Neither WIMP-theory and not even the mathemagics as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) can not solve the problem. It might sound crazy, but in my humble opinion, non-compactified extra dimensions should be considered.

[@stargazer7644]

And it is even more complicated than that. Some galaxies do spin at the rates Newton and GR predict. Most do not. The former galaxies are assumed not to have dark matter for some reason.

[@debrainwasher]

@@stargazer7644 I completely agree. Since neither a physical theory nor an experimental proof for the WIMP-thesis exits, but there is something out there, we can't see or detect, simple logic tells us, there is a location with stuff out there, we don't have access to. At least not by known means. And this location encompasses the whole universe, since physical laws seem to apply in the whole visible universe. Hence there must be an undiscovered property of the fabric of spacetime itself, that does not fit into string-theory with compactified extra-dimensions. There is however am Ansatz of a theory, that should be developped further: It is the incomplete hyperspace-theory of Burkhardt Heim from the 50's, that could explain lots of mysteries; e.g. how stars manage to remina stable, although control science tells us a star can not be stable, since the time-constant for fusion is in the fs…ns range, while gravitational responses take years. When you attempf to drive a car with a reaction-time of 1 minute, you would crash. Dark matter and dark energy could also be explained, as strange reactions on strong pulsed magnetic fields, that use Lorentz- and Maxwellian force (aka repulsion force) to surpass nuclear fusion reactions without the inconveniant temperatures of supernovae.

[@John-tc9gp]

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

[@stargazer7644]

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

[@josefanon8504]

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

[@stargazer7644]

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

[@josefanon8504]

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

[@Vgamer311]

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

[@scottwatrous]

Well field 1 and field 2 mostly cancelling out but leaving only some tiny remnant reminds me of the idea that the early universe may have been largely equal amounts of matter and anti-matter and the matter we have is the tiny remnant after it all annihilated, which, would probably mean the initial universe had many times more material overall in it to start? Is there anything related between these things beyond that?

[@thomasl.9090]

Summing up all the frequencies leading to gigantic values reminds me of the ultraviolet catastrophe which puzzled physicist for quite a while until it was resolved by quantizing photon energy. Is this the reason why quantized space is discussed?

[@brianmason9803]

We are told that the only way that the unverse could be expanding is if there is something inside pushing it apart. That assumes that there is nothing of any significance outside the 'known' universe. Is it not more logical to assume that there is something outside our universe pulling on it and stretching it? Why do we assume that all we know is all there is?

[@scientious]

Talking about the experimental disproof of the double slit explanation might be interesting.

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Like Mass, Space can also be changed to energy. Electric field of em wave comes from space as charge never loses any of its field. Also in gravitational slingshot kinetic energy is transferred from space around moving mass.

[@andrewzimba7432]

So quantum field vibration frequencies cancel out almost entirely, but not quite and dark energy is what is left. In the early universe matter particles and anti-matter particles canceled out almost entirely, but not quite and our matter-based stuff is what's left. Would the ratios of those non-equities be related?

[@bennettian]

Hi, I have this question I can not get around: ok I understand gravity curves space, and that this curve makes object "fall", the moon will "fall" towards the earth and this makes it orbit. We "fall" toward the earrth and we fell this as a force of gravity. My question is : WHY DO OBJECT FALL ?

[@LukeKendall-author]

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

[@hooked4215]

If we assume that emptyness does not exist, then there must be a regular density of energy (aka mass) per quantic unit. It is believed that its value equals the Planck's constant, so it is masked in the formulae.

[@betaneptune]

So what's the experimental or observed value of the energy density of "empty" space?

[@dankal444]

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

[@Borland12345]

If you integrate all possible wavelengths, in a continuous wavelength domain, between the plank length and DC, you get a big number, but if you integrate over a discretized domain between the same endpoints, do you get a much smaller total integrated energy?

[@binbots]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.

[@1kreature]

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

[@coupsdestylo]

what happens if you add up all the wavelength you can't measure up to the planck length and estimate how frequently they would randomly combine to make a planck length?

[@randomchannel-px6ho]

In the theoretical physics world there's a ton of interest in anti-De sitter space aka a negative cosmological constant. It's very odd how the math seems to be begging for something which violates observation, but also as this video points out the observations are confusing and suggest that something is wrong with our current models

[@dww527]

Antigravity kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIWoiH-Jid6In8U kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIWoiH-Jid6In8U Extended electro dynamics Scalar field: scalar, scalar longitudinal, helicoidal waves may couple with gravity

[@Mobius3c273]

Perhaps we can deduce the energy density from the fact that it's mass taken over huge distances and scales curves the Universe so that light from distant objects is reddened. The energy density also gives an excess of microwave radiation as it forms mini bangs that gives space a dark body spectrum. The mini bangs cause comic rays, the production of high energy particles that quickly decay into quarks and leptons. In this hypothesis the concept of curved Time negates the need for a single creation event. The energy density is large but is limited by the formation of many bangs that create cosmic rays. Remember the Ultraviolet catastrophe... it's the same deal.

[@clancyjames585]

Would it be more correct to say that GR predicts there *is* a cosmological constant, but not what its value is? Although I suppose the standard model has ~20 free parameters that are fit to experimental data too, so yeah, probably it's equivalent...

[@NdMoreSpd1.0]

Maybe a stupid question but as a former radio repairman turn audio installer I can't help but wonder... When calculating the energy within under the Standard model, measuring every possible wave within (excluding based on Plank or not) are you, can you, calculate for Frequency Cancelation? E.g. the ever existing example of water ripples on a pond or the more current version comparison of noise cancellation. If any two waves are applied to each other what is the outcome? Complicated by calculating that interaction across all the waves used to calculate the energy in the Standard Model of course... Is it possible the Frequency Calculation so drastically reduces the Standard Model as to make the answers significantly closer?

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

What would you get if you considered the energy density prediction of General Relativity to be correct, albeit exactly half negative energy and half positive energy such that it cancels out perfectly in every way except for the Unruh Effect?

[@OtterSwims]

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

[@wiskadjak]

I wonder if the fields are slightly out of sync and every once and a while there is constructive interference resulting in a rogue wave producing a flood of matter particles. Thoughts?

[@robjames4160]

Is there not a provision in the "addition of wavelengths" that accounts for harmonics and phase cancellations? This seems like a wave mechanics issue that emerges from a mathematical one. Even with sound waves, you don't just "add up" the frequencies - there are places where the harmonics overlap and cause phase disruptions and cancellations. Having leftover energy after cancellations isn't an issue if the origins of the waves are out of alignment. Essentially, the entire wave doesn't get cancelled, just the points and periods in the wave propogation that are properly aligned. There is going to be a residual energy signature remaining in the origin field. What also isn't taken into consideration (from what I can tell) is particle manifestation thresholds. If the field is filled with noise, and particles are popping in and out of existence from that noise, it sounds an awful lot like wave momentary peak level amplification due to the interaction of multiple waves. Two waves "cross" and the amplitude at that point in the field boosts up and past a particle manifestation threshold, where now the "particle" has enough energy to interact with other "particles" by way of RESONANCE. Basically, one particle captures another, and that interaction is sustained based on the amount of energy in the interaction (bond), the orientation of the interaction (resonances that are symmetrical along a field axis are more stable), and if more than one resonant, bonded interaction then interacts with another resonant interaction, now it needs DIMENSIONALITY to be described. Each level of particle resonance/interaction adds a dimension to spacetime. A single quantum fluctuation above the interaction threshold = a virtual particle = single dimension/highest wave behavior. Two fluctuations above the threshold that interact and resonate = a real particle = 2 dimensional spatial description/wave particle duality. Two or more real particles interacting = 3 dimensional spatial description/lowest wave behavior. Ultimately, spacetime is an emergent property of quantum interactions that resonate with other quantum field interactions, and each layer of interactions is more and more stable because it contains more and more field energy. It also lowers the uncertainy surrounding the location of the conglomerate particles because the resonances are less and less wave-like in their interactions. The field itself could be contributing to the accelerated expansion. If we look at the "Big Bang", it is most often referred to as a "period of rapid expansion in the early universe". While it is sort of true, it's a bit misleading. The universe is the result of an energy cascade from whatever the most fundamental field is. We'll call it the Alpha field. Alpha was highly energetic, and there were no resonanced between field fluctuation because there was simply too much energy. Any interaction between wave fluctuations was immediately torn apart. Then the field energy began to drop, until the fluctuations that were able to resonate with each other began to become more and more prevalent - we'll call these omni particles. They required no dimensionality and are fully contained within the geometry of the field. Then, at some point, omni partcles began to resonate with each other, forcing spacetime to emerge all at once in a sort of cascade. A lot of energy was converted into mass and other particles as the energy field "cooled" and omni partilces forged spacetime through the geometry of their interactions. The resulting particles like quarks (which may actually BE the omni partilces) began to interact with others as the universe "cooled" even further. This cooling and energy cascade didn't stop at the Big Bang. There is still energy in the Fundamental Field that is cascading into spacetime, creating more of it, even now (DARK ENERGY). It can only do it where real particle density is low enough for omni particles to form and interact free form the influence . Mass resists expansion because the density of resonance in the field interactions prohibits the creation of more spacetime - almost like a full balloon resists having more air pumped into it. This is partially why mass bends spacetime. Gravity is both negative acceleration due to the rate of new spactime emerging from the field energy cascade, and cumulative assymmetry in the field resonances for all associated mass. Basically the thing that creates spacetime, also curves it.

[@LPPFusion]

The Big Bang theory has way more failed predictions. Thanks for the great video, awesome topic and presentation!

[@Thiniking]

Which as answer makes less sense? Seems to me that the quantum answer makes no sense.

[@haroldsaxon1075]

To put it into perspective, it's like comparing the conventional detonation of 1g of TNT to the energy of the complete fission of the same 1g of mater. The total amount of energy within 1g of TNT far exceeds the yeald of its conventional detonation. With fission vs detonation, we understand why so much of that energy is inaccessible. With the two models above, we've yet to grasp why so much of the energy that the standard model says should be there is inaccessible. It could be that the standard model is wrong, but there are many many other potential explanations as well.

[@gerbenhoutman9348]

1:54 There is no bottom end of e=mC2 The question is how is it that matter the size of an electron has a charge etc.

[@MatthewSuffidy]

My idea is that gravity can have opposite curvature, and this is likely caused by anti matter. So describing the curvature of gravity can be very wide in effect I think? So my idea is that basically a small amount of anti gravity exists between galaxies, but the matter can cluster and pass through the zero line of gravity and that happens somewhere around the outer part of galaxies. This kind of suggests there is in fact a lot of anti matter somewhere. The galaxies would continue to accelerate from the anti matter well, but not FTL unless the space itself was doing so.

[@TimothyReeves]

What’s the rationale for adding all those wavelengths to calculate the energy density using the standard model approach?

[@btfilther]

Could it be that gravity and dark energy are the same thing? Gravity always acts attractive but if there are no massive objects close enough to eventually fall into each other in all other cases gravity attracts spacetime thus infinitely stretching it. Spacetime is like a piece of cloth that can be infinitely stretched and that makes its surface area larger and larger. Paradoxically objects are moving away from each other faster because of the attractive force of gravity.

[@abebuckingham8198]

I think the issue here is that gravity travels at the speed of light but the expansion of the universe is faster than light. So that suggests they're distinct phenomenon.

[@rossholst5315]

It would seem that for space to be empty that it would require zero energy. But what does zero energy look like? Is it a place with no time? Is it a place with no space? To me the places where a perfect vacuum could exist are distances below a plank length (possibly infinitely below) and places beyond the visible universe, which presumably would be at some infinite distance. But how do you measure something over 0 time? How do you measure something at an infinite distance? What do either of those concepts mean? What is the energy of light with a wavelength equal to that of the visible universe? How big would the detector need to be to pick up that wavelength?

[@davorgolik7873]

Doc you are just getting better and better! ❤

[@WilliamBerry-e9i]

If true that all chemical elements have been discovered, is it equally true that all elements isotopes have been discovered? Are there more stable elements in space then in the earth? In a round about way, asking if it's more likely to develop future compounds in space rather then on earth.

[@MrFelimoneill]

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

[@RobbieHatley]

For the summation to work, it needs to be renormalized, just as with QED. The only problem is figuring out how to do the renormalization; as I understand it, no one knows. On this issue, GR is right and QM is wrong. Once we figure out the renormalization, I think QM's number for vacuum energy density will be very close to GR's number.

[@christopherables4235]

This makes me wonder if those two predictions aren't the answers to different questions. Hmm. What if the quantum one would make a big bang, and the relativity one describes where we are now in the process of that boom? I'm guessing they're actually not wrong at all - we just don't know their true relationship quite yet. If you take quantum and add relativity (without discarding the time dimension), is there a way to reach a description of what we actually see when we look out there?

[@geraldwelch8117]

In standard cosmology, we often attribute the energy density of empty space to the cosmological constant (Λ) or dark energy. However, the Hypothesis of Unified Gravity (HUG) proposes that the natural state of the universe is dominated by a repulsive curvature of spacetime, which I refer to as Inverse Gravity (IG). IG is the default state of the universe and gravity is the aberration, which is only observed when matter is introduced. Inverse Gravity acts to push matter apart, explaining the universe’s accelerated expansion without the need for dark energy. In mass-dominated regions, this curvature smoothly transitions into the attractive curvature we recognize as gravity (G). Rather than treating gravity and expansion as forces, HUG suggests that both are geometrical properties of spacetime. This perspective offers a unified explanation for the behavior of the universe, potentially providing a more elegant and consistent model than current theories that rely on dark energy.

[@riderpaul]

Do neutrinos slow down as they leave the gravitational pull off the sun and if so, are there slow neutrinos escaping from the center of the galaxy? If they exist, are slow neutrinos easier to detect than fast ones?

[@drdon5205]

Yes. Yes. No.

[@MrJPI]

If we integrate the fields' zero energy over all possible frequencies, how do we weight those energies? Put another way: how many lowest energy oscillators there is in a cubic meter for example?

[@Javaman21011]

I've always wondered about dark energy.. like, how do we know the universe is expanding.. what if the doppler shift of the far away galaxies was due to their original source moving really fast and not the intervening space in between expanding? Wouldn't that make more sense? The far away galaxies are moving fast, the middle away galaxies are moving average, and the close galaxies are moving slowly?

[@taborredford214]

just spitballing here: remember the coastal problem? it isn't possible to measure the length of a coastline. If you measure from a map that is zoomed out the coast line is relatively straight and easy to measure and you get a relatively small result, but if you zoom in and account for all the little imperfections your measurement gets longer. As your unit of measuring gets smaller your coastline gets bigger like zooming in on a fractal. Effectively, all continents and islands are finite shapes bound by an infinite boundary. Big picture, this looks like the same kind of problem. when we measure on the cosmic scale we get an incredibly small measurement, but when we measure from the quantum side we get an incredibly large measurement. It's almost like the fine details reveal a lot of imperfections that are registering as energy but when we zoom out a lot of these imperfections become meaningless. As I'm typing this feels like a profound observation, but the moment I try to work out the details I realize that this analogy falls apart very quickly. lol

[@UNKNOWNPERSON-kk9kd]

Why does the energy density of vacuum have to be the same, universe-wide? Maybe it's additive/subtractive an balances out if you consider the cosmos as a whole? What about black holes in all of this?

[@hellofranky99]

How long does this quantum space energy last? If the particles pop in and out of existence, isn't it incorrect to assume that all possible wavelength can coexist at a specific unit of time?

[@williamgiusti7146]

I know little about physics but maybe the matter-antimatter asymmetry and the gravity-antigravity asymettry could be connected somehow? I mean, what if some unknown process caused the generation of anti-baryonic matter to become anti-gravitonic matter (dark energy) and thus caused the expansion of the Universe? If previous to this process you had all of space filled with just energy from matter-antimatter annihilation you could explain why that shows up as a massive number in quantum theory while the post process Universe displays a minuscule fraction of that whole.

[@totherarf]

As per usual, well above my pay grade. But worth the attempt of comprehension nonetheless! It seems we are talking about possibilities of possibles. I have some questions ...... What is the ratio of space contained in the universe compared to the mass of stuff within it? Could these 4 atoms worth of energy be roughly equivalent when the ratios are compared? The quantum world consists of a "fuzz" of frequencies that can combine to produce baryonic matter ...... are those frequencies constant? If not how can you add them to get your rather large estimate of energy. Given that adding waveforms up involves adding them in individual quanta (so as not to get infinities) how do we know the size of quanta we are dealing with? To be sure I do not expect answers, but the questions remain ..... Am I thinking of this in the wrong way?