What Happens Beyond the Planck Length?

[@martinrumsey9639]

What happens beyond the Planck length? My wife said, you end up in the sea....every pirate knows that.

[@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679]

The Planckthropic Principle says the Universe evolved to laugh at itself! Thank you for that!

[@akajunior1225]

Ha ha ha ha

[@brandyraccoon1473]

A ruler you say. A ruler say you. Tis nothing but a small Planck of wood.

[@wallyslow]

Medium Planck, small plank, micro plank , nano-plank, than probably plunk is this infinite small thingies namefication holds up The infinitesimal is an infinite, soo there will be endlessly smaller lengths found and crossed on to explain the closest approximation of really withour mere human intellect. Also an approximation of reality will never be the reality ( the map is not the territory) Because of our inability to gasp infinity in all shapes, forms an constructs, We will never be able to fully explain reality / the universe. Also in my humble opinion every thing around us has a piece of 1 or more infinity’s with it while co-exists with the undeniable entropy in our systems. On these the cross roads of infinite and entropy things all things become chaotisch , Emergent, changing..and (what might seem contradictory): Sentient, not self-aware but more selfreferal in processes. Sentient here meaning more how a star or a galaxy could sentient (which is for now also beyond our understanding in our approximation of reality) My humble conclusion: because of the uncomprehendingly of infinity mix with certain entropy our universe /reality will/can never be fully know. But with scientific principles and lots of theoretical and practical experiment, we might give the best hypothesises / educated guesses. Science will alway be malleable, should avoid to become dogma, Or a belief in objective truths. Science should be tool ! To formulated an idea : to measure the outcome (2x) and then hypothesis what’s this could mean. (Preferably without a value-stamen) The scientific methode is the best we have for now. And I’m all happy for it.. Maybe the friends were the algorithms we found along the way.

[@bigbadbith8422]

YES!

[@RomanNumural9]

Thank you for not pulling any punches. Straight and directly to the point. So many other videos would try to describe this with 25 minutes of preamble. This is nice

[@JoEbY-X]

Indeed... it's refreshing to find a physics video where I had to pause in order to keep up rather than watch at 1.5x due to impatience.

[@frolsttyy]

Man, I have to see this video at least 10 times. But... it's has blown my mind out. Ok, we would need a way to measure the initial expantion, but the temperature and fusion of forces, oh man!

[@rutgers182]

people who can explain things in simple ways understand them. those that make things sound complex, are confused by them.

[@KippiExplainsStuff]

I'll tell you why I love your videos: as a science communicator myself (longform text), I disagree with the tendency of most pop sci channels to disrespect the readers/viewers by dumbing things down or glossing over important science. if you respect your viewers enough to explain it clearly without dumbing it down - you're doing it right. good job, my friend. love your content!

[@OVAstronomy]

Thank you that means a lot.

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

Can you imagine a nerdy chick telling her nerdy boyfriend his peewee is smaller than a Planck Length?

[@archlich4489]

It's a fine line between proper modeling and eye candy. The latter can really fire the imagination of a small child, say.

[@assaf]

It is surprising, somewhat amusing, and somewhat lovely, to bump into Kippi Explains randomly on KZbin. Kippi mate, I still remember your longform texts from the COVID era periodically and appreciate what you did. Hope you're doing well and all the best.

[@KippiExplainsStuff]

@@assaf not as surprised as I am to read this comment. thanks a lot. the page is still up and running!

[@SpaceCakeism]

Saw the title, saw the duration; thought to myself, "try me." Glad I did, didn't expect to find this gem; getting tired of hearing the same few lines regurgitated thousands of times, so this was a breath of fresh air.

[@brucea9871]

I'm glad you clarified that things can still happen below the Planck length. I also like that you suggested a minimum nonzero radius for a black hole. Although I think most physicists suspect a black hole doesn't really have zero radius I find in many discussions of black holes they claim it does have zero radius. I wish they would state what they believe instead of misleading people. I also dislike the habit many people have of referring to a black hole's size as the size of its event horizon. A black hole is actually much smaller than that.

[@frun]

Condensed matter systems and analog black holes tell much about Plank constants and black holes.

[@AlmostEthical]

I agree, Bruce. Claims that the final scrap of stellar core is zero radius does nothing but confuse. And the problem with the event horizon measure is that we think of it epistemologically - in terms of our perception of black holes - rather than the object in itself. I've not seen a video dare to take this subject on but it seems pivotal to understanding the BB and black holes (if they are not the same thing).

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Charged black holes may in fact be naked singularities (Reissner-Nordstrom metric) … we just don’t know. But because QCD calculations are on a lattice, there is reason to think that we’ll start to see new physics if we get down to 10^-20 cm. Physics may break down long before we reach the Planck length!

[@manifold1476]

He didn't "clarify" that idea, - - - He ASSERTED it!!!!

[@nsacockroach4099]

Well the black hole *is* the region below the event horizon. The radius of a black hole is the Schwarzschild radius. What I think you meant is the Singularity. It is not known if the mass is actually concentrated in a singularity (most likely not) or compacted to plank scale lengths. Edit: Or were you refering to the fact that the radius in the Scharzschild metric is actually not a real distance?

[@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679]

I've read many different explanations/descriptions of this but I have to say the way you've presented it has given me a totally new way of thinking about it. Very much appreciated!

[@julianemery718]

I liked how you explained this. It feels like you had the brief of "Whats the fewest words needed to explain this without cutting corners or dumbing down?" And you stuck to it quite well.

[@nicemandan]

I'd always imagined the planck length/scale as a universal voxel but thanks to this explaination I now realise this is not the case.

[@sakesaurus]

That's physics. It has a tool, it uses it, doesn't make any assumptions. It tries it's best to not create unnecessary world views. But usually when you hear "planck lemgth is the limit", you don't think that it's the limit for current physics tradition, you think it's the actual objective limit, that something objects to dividing past that. Honestly i don't think the gravity vs. quantum will keep up for long we'll have anpther system for sub planck length physics. It's just gonna be a superstition...

[@thejorgelopez9135]

This channel is gonna sky rocket any day now. Some of the best explanations and visuals of complex topics I’ve ever seen. This thing is about to take off. Congrats.

[@MisakaMikotoDesu]

Thank you for this! This is very insightful compared to what you get with other channels.

[@OVAstronomy]

Thank you!

[@enlongchiou]

Joseph Polchinski string theorist proposed at Planck length l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5 which can deduce vacuum energy ch=(4.9154)^3*pm=2pi*g*m^2=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4 under critical mass[6^3*pm] is solution of GR field equation can expand to proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2 generate strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/(4pi*l/3))^2=1.13*10^28 by Tesseract which can transfer into EM force between proton[pm], electron[me] in Atom[A] by k*e^2=g(p)*pm^2/137.036=ch/(2pi*137.036)[e+]=me*(c/137.036)^2*A[e-]=4pi*g(p)*pm*me*137.036/128.51991 which can reproduce Dirac's quantum field , deduce me^2/pm^2/g*m^2/k*e^2=(me/pm)^2/137.036=2.16*10^-9=0.00116592026-0.00116591810=(0.001165920+((61-41)+(57-25))*10^-9/2) - (0.00116584719+6845*10^-7+154*10^-8+92*10^-9) : discrepancy of muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor between experiment data, theoretical prediction from Fermilab at 8/10/23.

[@kevincottam9684]

I am having some trouble understanding this at the moment. But I had dome some work in this area in my notebook a while back. and a whole bunch of physics formulas come falling out of various descriptions of particles with the planck energy. The trouble is now how do we describe space-time. one such equation is both compatible with E=mc2 , the hawking equation, defines G in quantum terms and can by plugged into GR and the Shrodinger equation, and is the compton wavelength equation and the schwartzchild radius. the trouble then is half of these use one description of spacetime while the other half use a different one. There seems to be no way to reconcile the two. It is our decriptions of space-time that are wrong. Everything else is mathematically self consistent across many branches on physics.

[@seanspartan2023]

I just found this channel and I can't believe there are so few subscribers. The material and presentation reminds me of PBS Spacetime. I especially like that information and even complex concepts are explained succinctly yet I don't feel like they're being "dumbed down."

[@zxLoneWolf]

Cohesive and aesthetically pleasing format. Concise information. Great video

[@bbbl67]

One thing about the Planck Length is that if it's the smallest length available in spacetime, then that solves the singularity problem in black holes and the Big Bang. If a singularity is a divide-by-zero error, then having the Planck Length as the smallest length solves that problem, as there is no zero lengths to divide by.

[@xyhilwastaken]

Can you give citing or any credible answer as to why you assume this is the case? Please don't be Dunning Kruger effected.

[@bbbl67]

@@xyhilwastaken I'll leave that upto you to figure out, as your own Dunning-Kruger test. I would've provided the supporting information otherwise.

[@xyhilwastaken]

@@bbbl67 Extremely meaningful reply as always.

[@bbbl67]

@@xyhilwastaken Oh, "as always", eh? So we've interacted before? I have not heard of you before.

[@apophenic_]

​@@bbbl67dude... just cite sources.

[@anthonydraco7958]

Thank you for explaining this clearly. Planck units has never made sense to me until you. It’s always been to me they just pluck random numbers and shuffle them around in the least understandable way to get them. NOW I understand why they’re the smallest units that matter.

[@DB-xp9px]

i've been wondering what's at the smallest scale for a decade. the trouble is, no matter how deeply we penetrate the fabric of existence, one can always imagine it's made up of smaller pieces. i sometimes think the universe is infinite at both the largest and smallest scales. we'll sadly always reach an observational limit in both directions.

[@Rationalific]

Thank you for this video (and others that I'll check out later)! Please keep up the great work! I just subscribed, and I hope MANY more do as well in short order (even if not quite within the sub-Planck time...).

[@xcoder1122]

This video treats gravity as a force but as far as we know, it isn't. Gravity is an effect of space time curvature. And not being a force, it cannot be unified with other forces. There may only be conditions at which spacetime is no longer curved and then gravity would go away but not because it got unified, but because if there is no curvature, there is no effect that we call gravity.

[@fastlearner292]

You missed the point so horribly, I don't even know where to start.

[@xcoder1122]

@@fastlearner292 You could start by educating yourself. You cannot combine a non-force with other forces and gravity is no force.

[@chrisgozzard9587]

Excellent video... I always felt like the plank length was an indication that we are in a simulation, or computer memory bank with the plank length being the resolution of the bit grid. Anyone else thought of this?

[@OVAstronomy]

Thank you - and I can see where you are coming from if you originally thought of the Planck length as a resolution of space itself.

[@sakesaurus]

Yeah. It makes sense. Physics is basically a computer simulation of reality and it has a resolution in the "length" data type. You can't reasonably model things that don't fit in your model as you have limitations like the gravity at that length. Modeling things by putting them into formal systems with numbers representing things is a base of both science and of computer use. On another coincidence, the value of machine zero for double is 2^-31. I believe the Planck length in meters is like 2^-40. That has to mean something.

[@justanotherguy469]

This video explains it quite well and includes the mathematics which will enable you to verify what is being said, instead of just saying it and expecting it to be accepted as truth. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5zYg5Sqr5eloJIsi=OEW_HuwU1x1IU7Ut

[@Elrond_Hubbard_1]

I'd heard of a Compton wavelength before but I didn't really know what it was, so thank you for teaching me that and more! I did a BSc but not in physics. I am a huge fan of these topic though, and I consider myself to have an advanced level of a layman's understanding. I really like that your video isn't pulling any punches because that's how I learn new things. Liked and subbed. Can't wait to see your channel grow mate 😊👍

[@durandalgmx7633]

Very deep but very enlightening. My perception of the universe is changed yet again. Thanks.

[@Slowpaws1389]

Good work, I usually watch these videos right after popping in a suppository. It is very calming.

[@unclecarl5406]

I know exactly what you mean. I've just come back from having a cystoscopy and found this very calming and soothing.

[@winkywacky6173]

Popping a pre-revelation suppository was the best comment yet! I'd been using Alka- Seltzers.

[@crisrose521]

Very well spoken for such a complex subject . Would have been nice to get into a little Kelvin temperature 😊

[@fremtidenkommer]

If gravity (spacetime) is quantized, but the Planck Length is not the smallest length, would point particles, upon measurement, collapse to a black hole, for energy levels we know are too small for this to happen?

[@dzejty]

nice video. but i think there is a factor of square root of two in the "compton length equals schwardschild radius" derivation of planck length compared to the "square root of combination of universal constants" definition. which actually nicely highlights the point that planck length is not truly one exact value, but a length scale at which funny things beyond our current understanding of physics start to happen.

[@OVAstronomy]

Possibly but you made a good point; the Planck length isn't anything special, but rather a scale or magnitude at which our current models break down.

[@martifingers]

Remarkably well done. Simple as possible - but not too simple as Einstein advised! I have immediately subscribed.

[@Thrillin_Chillin_Drillin]

I was looking for clarification on why we can not investigate smaller units, and this helped a lot. Thanks!

[@Achrononmaster]

@3:00 this is a critical point, the Compton wavelength is certainly *_not_* "purely quantum mechanical". The mass is gravitational charge (or inertia, but then there's the Equivalence Principle), so it is a relationship that involves gravity. GR is already a quantum theory imho, just not classically, since classical GR presumes trivial spacetime topology (locally Minkowski) which is fundamentally wrong-headed. Any spacetime containing matter cannot be locally Minkowski. There has to be non-trivial topology. Provided that topology can contain ER bridges it will contain closed timelike curves, and that yields a quantum theory. The indeterminism due to CTCs is precisely the same as QM indeterminacy (gives a nondistributive orthomodular lattice of measurement propositions), only this indetermism is superior in a sense since it is explained with spacetime topology, whereas in QM it is just unexplained axiom.

[@Dvpainter]

so the smallest stuff just kind of teleports around like a tick update in a game?

[@TheKoloradoShow]

That sounds like a really good analogy

[@atil4]

I asked my self some of fundamental questions related to the Planck units, I found here by far the best explanations, thank you!

[@richardventus1875]

Perhaps the universe fractal and is like zooming into and out of a Mandelbrot set - ie the same complexity from below the Planck Length to the cosmological scale.

[@pugowner1347]

I think I sprained my Cingulate Cortex. 🤯

[@Chatsworth1979]

Excellent vid! Amazing that we can even begin to consider such processes with our finite minds.

[@Argonaut320]

Beautifully done, Thanks !!

[@logosera]

Excellent, straight into the (rather difficult) science without the “this is amazing, you must watch” sort of clickbait we see so often. Added to my ‘try to understand this video’ todo list.

[@maxfmfdm]

Really good video. The questions we ask are quite intriguing. We sort of assume that what we know now has some sort of completeness to it. And so we use concepts we have defined in our current understanding to also define what we expect to know once we know more. Perhaps this is the result of our advancement in using formal systems like math. I expect that quantum superposition is actually a very high frequency vibration between two states. So high in freqency that its vibration only becomes relevant when the center of that vibration is near the midpoint of what we would consider two discrete states. Perhaps quantum computers will allow us to eventually collect some emperical data on the high frequency system by keeping it in play over longer and longer sequences of interactions. So we can finally discover that it is as deterministic as everything else.

[@OddRagnarDengLerstl]

Very interesting. You explained it in such a good watch that I believe I understand 👍

[@rahulronaldo6813]

Just to say in a word, "Awesome"🎉, the way you narrating and a physics❤

[@bloodyorphan]

If you have trouble with the stability equation with super high temperature collision physics consider this ... Inverse square any measured temperature back to a 6 Planck Radius. 300 Million to 900 Million is cool compared to your average Bar heater 🙂 E=1/(R2/R1)^2

[@stellarswine9488]

This is crazy, so any measurements that want to be made on scales smaller than Planck length are impossible without creating a black hole? It almost feels like the universe is gatekeeping the truth behind itself lmao Really cool video!

[@sakesaurus]

Even if you take something like 1000 planck lengths the gravoty is still gonna mess up everything you could predict

[@justanotherguy469]

If there is such a thing as an area smaller than the Planck length it would have to be probed with something that has no mass, energy, or momentum.

[@sakesaurus]

@@justanotherguy469 u meant planck length squared?

[@justanotherguy469]

Plank length cubed.@@sakesaurus

[@danilolabbate]

Best explanation of the Planck Length I've ever seen.

[@pavolusak2488]

Uder the Planck length {r< l(Planck)}, the mass of the "Planck" black hole increases according to the m(bh)=(htrans/c).{1/r(bh)}

[@christopherellis2663]

2:53 𝕾𝖈𝖍𝖜𝖆𝖗𝖙𝖟𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖎𝖑𝖉 not Schwårtzs child. 😅

[@YouTubist666]

Excellent explanation

[@James2210]

Maybe at even lower temperatures the elecromagnetic force splits to the electric and magnetic force. One thing I never got about the planck length is that it's the smallest *radius* of a black hole. Does that mean that the smallest black hole is like a 2x2x2 planck length?

[@editman145]

Nice vid. Very pleasant and efficient way of narrating and explanation. !!!!!!

[@JohnHoranzy]

Holy mackerel! In less than 8 minutes you explained so much. You took so many concepts I knew and brought them from the abstract to a functional understanding. Thank you!

[@gregmonks]

I can tell you exactly what happens when you go beyond the Planck length. Things get very, very small. Don't bother . . . I will see myself out.

[@RayRay-dv9xg]

"Schwarzschild" is a german name. Almost every non german does this, but that name has nothing to do with a child :D It translates to "black shield" and you would pronounce it "schwarz-schild", not schwarzs-child. If you want to pronounce it nativley, you say schwarz and than you take the "sh" from should and the "ill" from hill, ending with d. Like "schwarz-shilld"

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

I have a hypothesis about the structure of the universe at small scales, and according to it, the planck length is the resolution of the universe and spacetime is discrete at those scales. And that discretisation is exactly the quantisation of gravity.

[@fredericklockard3854]

I’m confused because sometimes we’re told gravity is a force, other times we hear it’s the illusion of force created by the bending of space time. So which is it? This seems important to understand before tackling these quantum theories.

[@jsEMCsquared]

It's almost Like asking how big is the universe. I tried to explain to someone that we did not exist because of quantum physics or lack of at the plank scale.

[@schrodingcheshirecat]

The Observer Calculus, I conceptualized a few years ago, points to space being infinitely divisible. Forces with ratios such as Q^2/D^2 contain an aspect of curvature. Truly continuous smooth curvature in turn, requires unending divisibility. The trace of F = Q^2/D^2 is a continuous curved structure with an asymptote when approaching zero length. The Universe isn't going to supply a particle with infinite energy. A regulating flexible spring-like force of allowable energies governs or maintains the ∆ range. If space-time is continuous rather than discrete it would be far more energy-information efficient, locally, not to mention across the entire Universe. This relationship suggests singularities don't exist. Everywhere (spring-like, flexible, bendable, deformable) forces and fields exist or can exist, requires continuous curvature, and thus continuous space-time

[@bloodyorphan]

Going less than Planck means there is layers of space between the observer and the "matter". So the statement when talking about a black hole is it's relative density (xyz distances contract) goes less than Planck. It's mass based diameter inside the Black Hole is at least the same as the Galaxy it is occupying, assuming the galaxy has found stability. So a black hole is so big and hot it has layers of space between it and us the observer. Temperature Radio Frequency is just an assumed "smallest" window , and it does not consider the actual compressed space density of said photon (how hot it is) , i.e. how much space is compressed inside that Planck length of Big Bang expression that every full phase cycle produces (on and off) in our visible space. 1c==1c^2==1c^3 distance==mass==temperature That's relativity, the standard model.

[@MichaelBarry-gz9xl]

Best explanation so far. Thank you

[@MattHudsonAtx]

I think it was Susskind who said we don't need to quantize gravity, we need to gravitize quantum mechanics. I really like the way he thinks.

[@johnconnor7501]

Isn’t it the same thing?

[@MattHudsonAtx]

@@johnconnor7501 no, he's saying that our description of gravity is correct but qm has to change

[@johnconnor7501]

@@MattHudsonAtx got it!

[@mastershooter64]

you mean, "geometrize quantum mechanics" not gravitize lol because GR is a geometrical theory of gravity

[@MattHudsonAtx]

@@mastershooter64 no, that's not what I meant nor is it was Susskind said

[@nicholasmaude6906]

Are there similar videos about the Planck mass and Planck time?

[@ZionistWorldOrder]

you explain better than others, thank you

[@humblemusicianandy6385]

B-A (A)= plank length starts whilst (B) = plank length ends therefore the exact distance between the two (B&A) is the furthest distance in space. Can someone write this out as an equation?

[@b.s.7693]

What almost everybody misses: the planck length does not limit the size of empty space. Its the lower limit for the size of an object, at least according to our current understanding.

[@justanotherguy469]

No.

[@b.s.7693]

@@justanotherguy469 ??

[@nikhilbhale79]

Consider a very large water tank. The dimensions are such that if we add 1000ml of water to the tank then the water level rises by 1 Planc length. Now what will happen if we add only 500ml of water. Will the water level rise by 1/2 Planc length?

[@vitovittucci9801]

But how can you measure 1000 ml, or 500ml, or even 1.0 ml ? You need an instrument with a graduate scale having the maximum sensitivity of 1 Plank length, and that would be also the error. So you never can measure 1Plank lenght or less.

[@nikhilbhale79]

@@vitovittucci9801 For this experiment its not required to measure volume to 100th of decimal point. Anything less than 1000ml will work.

[@OVAstronomy]

The size of a water molecule is much much bigger than a Planck length. So even if we disregard other factors and quantum effects which make getting a totally level water tank to the precision of the Planck length impossible, the water molecules themselves are too big

[@nikhilbhale79]

@@OVAstronomy Consider another situation. A ship is floating in water with conditions such that the draft changes by 1 Planc length every time a 1kg mass is added or removed from it. Will the draft change when 0.5kg mass is added or removed?

[@OVAstronomy]

@@nikhilbhale79 The ship floating in water is a classical system. It is impossible to have it move by exactly 1 Planck length when a mass is added or removed. This is the type of thing I mentioned at the end regarding thinking classically in a Planck regime - it does not work this way as things are no longer deterministic and have intrinsic uncertainty in the quantum regime, and likely even more strange effects on Planck scales.

[@SuperJibulus]

Alright… who told him about my peener?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

6:31 "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin). In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty space, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space. Consider a special case: the Universe. 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 (according to general estimates, this acceleration is: a=πcH)*. 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 equivalence principle. 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). 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. The phase velocity of the evolution of the Universe: v'=πcr/L=c/2, where c=√2(v): the "second cosmological velocity" in relation to the proto-universe. {In general, the masses of galaxies should be estimated as follows: M=(c/G)rv', since the evolution of the system makes an additional contribution to the overall picture, and thereby clarify the problem of "dark matter".} 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).

[@Philomats]

That was well explained. Thank you.

[@LucasFerreira-gx9yh]

"factors of 2pi appear everywhere in quantum mechanics" 2pi also called Tau, the ratio of the circunference to the radius of a circle

[@kropotkinsoldbones9149]

Would love to see a video on the electric universe theory

[@irwainnornossa4605]

Damn, this was really good video!

[@ChrisWilson999]

I constantly wonder what could exist below our range of scale or above it. What could physics be like outside our scale bubble?

[@marktunnicliffe2495]

Well presented in a clear & easy to understand format. Thanks.

[@timelapseofdecay9028]

Interesting video. I knew all this from other science channels, but it's interesting nonetheless. May I suggest a new video on how gravity propagates outside of black holes? PBS Space Time touched on that subject, but was not convinced at all by their explanation.

[@OVAstronomy]

Thanks, i'll look into it.

[@TexasRy]

DEEEEP, great video, thank you!

[@latenightlogic]

Does everyone else follow along easily? I sure don’t. I get what it’s all about but it’s coming to my mind in a vague broad way.

[@glennabate1708]

I don’t think there is no limit to how small space can be divided into and no limit to how large it can is as it is infinite. I believe time is infinite in both directions and space is not expanding only everything tangible in the universe and the larger amount of space between 2 objects in the universe is and always was already there. There are probably trillions of universes but every possible does not exist and you do not exist in a parallel universe that’s is fiction. The universe is probably a lot larger than the observable universe.

[@kurtpiket6513]

I think the basic question is: Is all and anything only present by some kind of wave? Or ist there a possibility of 100% streight lines, because of attraction. Waves are present by projection. Beyond the Planck length, there are those streight lines?

[@SergiuCosminViorel]

This is much better than PBS!

[@bsal4097]

Great video.

[@christophschoberl9701]

Small correction from a german speaker. Schwarzschild is not pronounced "Schwartz- child". It is pronounced more like "Schwurtz-shild", with the "u" being the same as in "button" and the "i" being the same as in "chill". Schwarzschild is just a name, but it translates to blackshield.

[@OVAstronomy]

I did not know this - thank you!

[@christophschoberl9701]

@@OVAstronomy You're welcome. Very interesting video!

[@Govstuff137]

Good information. Thank you. I will be looking for more. I afraid to ask but I am very interested in the Compression of time. What has been discovered and what happened when time is compressed like a gass . What does the math say should happen? I know it's a lot. But I have to ask. Thank you.

[@alfadog67]

I like it! I had a little trouble following the cadence of the narrator... maybe you can slow it down a little?

[@LinkenCV]

Question: Does the Planck length limit the fluctuations of the vacuum in energy levels? Considering the evaporation of black holes by Hawking radiation and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dE*dt>h/2, could virtual particles with enormous(huuuuge) energy become black holes, evaporate and then recombine in less than dt seconds?

[@OVAstronomy]

It is true that this limits the vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles but they cannot create black holes on Planck scales. Black hole formation and evaporation is much more complex

[@LinkenCV]

@@OVAstronomy oh yeah, find out. Virtual BH (dRmu*dXmu>=(Lpl)^2 Nice topic

[@InstaKane]

I would like to see actual number values being used to show how these calculations work

[@OVAstronomy]

G = 6.67 x 10^(-11) Nm^(2)kg^(-2). c = 3.00 x 10^(8) m/s. h = 6.63 x 10^(-34) Js. hbar is h/2pi. Feel free to plug these into the Planck length formula yourself to calculate it in metres.

[@jeancorriveau8686]

Applying Newton's formula, I calculated that the force of gravity at the Planck units scale is 10^44 N, trillions of times stronger than the nuclear force. But that's assuming the Planck mass. Presumably, this mass is found only in black holes. The Planck length is not an arbitrary value. It is tied to gravitation.

[@OVAstronomy]

Indeed, but be careful applying classical or even many quantum formula on the planck scale. As discussed we have no accurate models for how physics works there and so it is not necessarily correct to use such formulae to analyse the strength of gravity or nuclear forces etc.

[@idkwtfiswrong]

For me there's an answer: Milliplank, microplank, nanoplank, picoplank, femtoplank, attoplank, zeptoplank, yoctoplank, rontoplank, quectoplank etc... There is no end in how small quantum realm can be

[@pgm3]

This is clear and concise. Any successful candidate for a UFT must likely involve a consideration of this realm.

[@OVAstronomy]

Agreed 🤝

[@scarletevans4474]

We keep hearing that black holes evaporate because of creation of particle and anti-particle pair on the verge of event horizon, but what happens on sub-particle sizes? If the black hole becomes smaller than the tiniest particles themselves, should it stop evaporating instead of evaporating even faster, as the particle being much bigger than the black hole can't be eaten by it? Can the black holes of Planck's Length or even slightly bigger still evaporate? If no, I suppose we would have everything riddled with tiny black holes that constantly fuse and evaporate at some higher size all the time (or maybe we do?) and if yes, then does it mean that we can actually have super tiny particles that are around the Planck's Length or smaller? Or it's a 'naive' way of thinking and we should think about it more in terms of waves and energy, like creation of some wave and anti-wave that are too small to create a particle, but one of them is absorbed by the black hole to create Hawking Radiation and the other one radiates out? (energy is quantified, so at some point we can't have enough of it to create a particle+antiparticle? Or we can keep going lower and lower, like above, to have arbitrarily small particle+antiparticle pair to cause the Hawking Radiation?)

[@shripadwarudkar6487]

Very good. Next time reduce the speed of delivery of narration... could it be made more illustratitive?

[@Samsv1]

Light is an electron particle. It can be described as a frequency but it's simply interpreted. It starts on a scale of observable, and presumed constant. Here is how you know it's not constant. Beyond red shifted galaxies, you can't see the light because emission has inertia. What you do see is heliosphere around our gravitational region where this relatively still moving dark matter is collected, light can obviously escape our solar system, and our heliosphere is not that of our own origin. Why would it be?

[@MattHudsonAtx]

Photon, not electron

[@Samsv1]

@@MattHudsonAtx That's the whole point, Einstein didn't have enough chemistry done to respect that light emissions don't just appear out of nowhere. Everything you see is an electron at the escape velocity of the molecular system it comes from.

[@JoséFidalgo-r2y]

Gostei do vídeo. Mas, vejamos o seguinte: Ao considerarmos um comprimento limite (seja ele definido da forma que for) estamos a quantizá-lo. Dito isto, deixo uma questão: de quantas cores se pode pintar um pixel? Não há meio pixel para pintar assim como não há meio comprimento de Plank (ou qualquer fração deste) para percorrer. I hope this translation conveys the essence of the idea: I liked the video. But here's the thing: When we consider a limit length (however defined) we are quantizing it. Having said that, I leave you with a question: how many colors can you paint a pixel with? There isn't half a pixel to paint, just as there isn't half a Plank length (or any fraction thereof) to travel.

[@vadimbich4602]

We define the Plank scale using a very much macroscopic definition of the Swartzschild radius. We simply scaled down an over-simplified solution from GR which ignores a bunch of factors, and at the same time, we declare that GR and QM models may not [/ do not] work on that scale. Doesn't it sound like a contradiction? Thanks for your explanation, but now the definition of the Plank scale seems even more like an arbitrarily defined constant to me.

[@justanotherguy469]

How can it be arbitrarily defined if it is derived through fundamentals?

[@cesarb714]

Nobody will solve gravity until we can define what spacetime is, as in physical characteristics.

[@petevenuti7355]

Would you agree that it's not the energy of a photon or other particle that's quantized, but it's how much that can be transferred or transformed through interaction that's quantized?

[@OVAstronomy]

Yes, as only energy differences really matter in physics.

[@larryjeffryes6168]

Could quantum gravity be the momentum of the expansion of the universe, turned in on itself though uneven expansion and turbulence, once it had expanded beyond minimum black hole scale? What happens in a location where expanding space time has nowhere to expand into?

[@drdca8263]

What do you mean by “expand *into*”? Like, are you imagining space as being, located in some kind of meta-space? If so, I don’t think that’s the current consensus

[@larryjeffryes6168]

@@drdca8263 I’m thinking of an imbalance in expansion. Where this happens, wouldn’t space time distort’ like a vast hodgepodge of points where of points, each an instance of this imbalance having reached a tipping point where “matter” manifests. Somewhat like mountain peaks but instead of a vertical vector a “spherical” vector of distortion into matter rather than into mountains.

[@drdca8263]

@@larryjeffryes6168 I find this difficult to interpret, but here is my attempt to interpret and reply to it: If the expansion of space is non-uniform across space, then, yes, it would seem that this would produce, or perhaps constitute, a kind of warping of space. I don’t see a reason why this would give rise to matter, as I think you are suggesting, but it being a result of the distribution of matter, does seem to make sense. ... oh! I see! You mean, in the way that mountains can be described by their height, with a vertical vector at each horizontal location, you are suggesting a similar thing at each point in space, of “how much expansion”, with this corresponding to matter? In that case, yeah kinda! (This kind of thing, a value at each location, is often called a “field”, btw. Topography (mountain shapes and such) can be described with a field of “altitude”, and the spacetime metric tensor can also be regarded as a field.) Though it is the matter distorting the space(time), not the matter being an incarnation of the distortion of space.

[@briseboy]

We can compute only to the event horizon density. Energy disperses at that mathematical point, Direction, the geometry of space, becomes indeterminate, indeterminable. I have not pursued theoretical increases further, due to the indeterminacy of the variables. Information becomes absent.

[@stevewhitt9109]

I believe that space is infinitely divisible. We need a new physics based on a deeper unstanding of the ultra-microscopic scale. Instead of trying to create a quantum theory of gravity, we need a NEW field theory of everything.

[@MattHudsonAtx]

Sounds like you didn't watch the video

[@spaceminers]

The fact that the plank length is smaller than any possible wavelength that a particle can create proves that gravity is created by complex wave patterns interference patterns affecting the fabric of space-time making it weaker. This causes the two bodies to be pushed towards each other from the stronger pressures of space-time outside the interference patterns. Quantum particles are not affected as they are too small. Also the more I research gravity and time the more I realize they are exactly the same and we perceive them differently as two separate things.

[@johnconnor7501]

I’ve seen a bunch of YT videos that explain how gravity is just time dilation and it’s not a force it’s an illusion caused by geodesics.

[@MattHudsonAtx]

Do you believe what you type before you type it out, or does it matter to you?

[@spaceminers]

@@johnconnor7501 it’s definitely not an illusion lol it exists and you are correct it’s not a force it’s a lack of force. Another way to explain gravity is with the Casimir effect more pressure on the outside than there is on the inside causing the two metal plates to fall together a.k.a. gravity!. gravity occurs when there is a difference of pressure kind of like voltage pressure. The greater the mass the more prominent the waves the more disturbance of the force.

[@spaceminers]

@@MattHudsonAtx I would suggest to hit the physics books brother! I’ve been researching astrophysics for longer than you’ve been alive

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Boost a spinning, charged electron (Reissner-Nordström metric) and you’ll have a naked singularity with which to probe the less-than-Planck-Length. I don’t know why physicists haven’t thought of this yet.

[@jandehn7288]

Can anyone tell me why the energy given off in a scattering experiment at Planck scale by definition is a black hole, please? It was almost the last thing he said in the video.....Thanks!

[@mertonhirsch4734]

2pi x planck length is the only photon wavelength who's gravity would give it a swartzchild CIRCUMFERENCE equal to itself (2pi x planck length). This could allow it to be trapped in a resonant orbital around it's own gravitational field. The orbital could fulfill the definition of a black hole because it can be motionless in some reference frame. (It's mass would be the Planck mass). When I asked about this on Physics stack exchange they shut it down because it was "pseudoscience". I've been trying to talk about this with physicists for 20 years and no one knows what I'm talking about.

[@bloodyorphan]

Photon diameter is predicted/observed at 12 Planck Radio Frequency is a different equation.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

@@bloodyorphan Do you mean photon sphere diameter? Where does 12 come from? At any rate, if you use the Swarzchild radius equation and energy equation for a photon it's circumference would equal its wavelength at the 2pi Planck length.

[@bloodyorphan]

@@mertonhirsch4734 Photons are an aperture from plasma space, that is 12 Planck in diameter, it is considered to be monodimensional (x,z) in the **visible space , Compressed by the G constant for its' polarised height visible on Earth, and residing at a depth of it's temperature in the plasma space. When you move the entire Photonic aperture through space it exhibits an on off cycle of it's stationary temperature which we measure in Terahertz, i.e. Radio Frequency, which can red-shift in any expanding space. **Electron weight space (+5c) is 1 second equals one second space or "visible" Photons are the top of the Stable Standard particle model +1c.

[@tomgraupner171]

superb ! thank you

[@alphalunamare]

Just a question: If spacetime is subject to the rigours of quantum mechanics and the plank length is minimal does that not indicate that a photon moving from A to B takes the same time and path length as 'any' allowed on that plank grid ... for diagonal traversals are obviated by definition. There is no curvature, it is just flat. The plank length is essentially the boundary beyond which all light paths are the same and devoid of preference in time or space, a geodesic constant.

[@thedeemon]

In quantum mechanics itself space is continuous, there is no grid and no length limit. When we measure position of a particle along given axis, it can be any real number, not some multiple of Planck length. So your photon is safe.

[@alphalunamare]

@@thedeemon Real numbers are a macroscopic fantasy that makes sense in every day life. Your argument enforces macro on the quantum, which hasn't worked out well so far. Consider A and B in quantum space, there is no quickest, shortest or fastest path between them. All paths are equal.

[@thedeemon]

@@alphalunamare I'm just referring to the actual math QM uses. See the position operator and its set of eigenvalues.

[@alphalunamare]

​@@thedeemon Yes I understand all that. My point is that if you imagine a grid of plank length increments then diagonal movements across a plank length square are not allowed, even if space exists and is not just a bubbling foam of confused nothingness. Just in case, I took a quick look at the Wiki article as you suggested. it seems to me to be agnostic on 'plank size' of things as it assumes Continuity from the very off. As a matter of interest, years ago I attended a course on Lebesgue Integration and I found it wonderful. I am not sure why, but I like to think about things even if I am wrong 🙂

[@alphalunamare]

hahah I just realised Lebesgue is all about countable points of discontinuity almost everywhere :-)