Why Physicists Think Gravity Creates Light
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- According to new research, gravity may have been able to create light... what?
Go to sponsr.is/cs_drbenmiles and use code DRBENMILES to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
Most articles on the topic stop just after the reveal - gravity can turn into light, but don't explain how. If you're like me that wasn't quite enough to satisfy your curiosity, so I wanted to dig a bit deeper and try to understand what is actually being proposed here.
#breakthrough #gravity #light
0:00 Pop Science Articles Aren't Giving Me Answers
00:38 Physicists Find Gravity Can Create Light
1:14 Starting with a Big Bang
3:53 Ad Segment
5:07 What Happened during Cosmic Inflation
7:50 How Gravity Creates Light
Where to find me:
Insta / drbenmiles
Newsletter drbenmiles.substack.com/
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv - Věda a technologie
Nothing can be heavy if nothing is light.
🤓I knew it🤓 I’ve always believed that gravity is actually the light. Both have the same speed. Dark light is what appears to us as an absence of photons, but in reality it’s in a higher level of light that we cannot detect in our modern tools; yet. 🤓
You need to trademark this
9:35 had me confused too... How do 2 massless particles decay into 2 massive ones?
@@koolkeef The same way that two massive particles decay into 2 (or three) massless photons. The vertex of (electron, positron, photon) works no matter which way you orient it in time. It's just some ways are harder to achieve than others, because you have to get the conditions just right.
@@duran9664 lol OK, armchair physicists
There's an uncertainty in the title. It allows for the interpretation that the fundamental cause of existence of light resides in gravity, somehow. The presentation states that some processes related to gravitational waves can lead to generating photons, wich is a much weaker statement. It's kind of saying that turning the light on is the reason photons exist. :)
Maybe you’re right about the title in context of someone without a strong physics background because I read this title and absolutely did not even consider that “Gravity is the source of light” cause well, we know about the electromagnetic force
Well, it does suggest that the 'original' form of the energy that existed in the universe at birth was in the form of gravitational waves. That energy then transferred into the electromagnetic field (photons) and thence into the other quantum fields thereby ultimately creating matter.
Questions about the existence and origin of the quantum fields that form our reality along with space-time itself are of a different order. I'm, not sure how you would go about addressing those.
Yeah nah, I didn't jump to the conclusion that he meant physicists think gravity is the primary or original cause of light. Not even a little. Why? Because the title did not make that statement, and I'm not in the habit of imagining statements that have not been made.
It would be very useful if Dr. Ben Miles would offer a transcript of the narration of the video, so we can dissect every statement and extract the right conclusion that is proposed. Doing it on the video is difficult, tiresome. What I got from reviewing it more carefully is that the high energy densities in the beginning were giving space such properties that stationary gravitational waves led to the creation of photons. A stronger suggestion is that this is the primary, fundamental mechanism for the creation of matter (creation of photons >>> splitting of the photons in matter-antimatter pairs). But the real conclusion proposed is that gravity is able to interact with the electromagnetic field, which hints at a link between the two phenomenons. So, yes, it's a statement that in the beginning it was light, as the primary form of existence of matter, and its existence was caused by a particular way of interaction between gravity and the EM field.
@johnickification, it refers to creation rather than what you say. A composer creates a piece of music. This does not imply he is the general reason that music exists.
Let me know what you think! And thanks to today's sponsor Curiosity Stream!
Go to sponsr.is/cs_drbenmiles and use code DRBENMILES to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
🤓I knew it🤓 I’ve always believed that gravity is actually the light. Both have the same speed. Dark light is what appears to us as an absence of photons, but it reality is a higher level of light that we cannot detect in our modern tools; yet. 🤓
I like the content of the video, but using the present tense "creates" in the title is misleading clickbait.
I already left a stand-alone reply, so I won't repeat the details. But I wanted to dray your attention to my concern: what is the _time_ of this, relative to symmetry breaking?
This is the perfect level of abstraction for me, I think. Thanks for the great content.
Correction.
Alan Guth inflationary theory proposes that the universe expanded in the inflationary period from a plank size to the size of a nugget, effectively in an expansion rate where 2 points separated at speed faster than light (not to the current size as said in this video).
Then from nugget size kept expanding but according to the standard big bang theory
Very nice video, I enjoyed the explanations and the animations, pretty cool 🙂👍
Hey Dr. Ben Miles, your videos are amazing and you deserve more recognition. Can you please do a video on the recent discovery of the James Webb telescope that found a possible galaxy that formed only 1 billion years after the Big Bang. Not sure how accurate that is so don’t quote me. But I would be very interested.
I think it shows we dont really know how light works, isnt beeteleguise's distance also highly variable depending on its light. Means light cant be a good measure of distance at the very leaste, somethings off.
@@mikejones-vd3fg I agree. There may be more than what meets the eye… of the James Webb Telescope. Red shifting as well is difficult. What about objects that are traveling near the speed of light towards us and we to them? How is the light sent then because to those mediums the speed of light is still the speed of light. But that is also dependent on time which causes this effect. Would that effect not also effect our distance calculations as our measurement of light is dependent on speed and time.
@@Plasma_-mf9gh We can calculate the redshift due to those distances (JWST) looking back to the early Universe. The recent JWST data showing confounding evidence of early galaxy formations is most likely an issue in the researcher's analysis of early Universe and how they accounted for variation of the initial mass function (IMF) which can have large effects on star formation estimations within their galaxy. Other research is already showing that by using different IMF distributions, their analysis can bring these early galaxy stellar masses closer to expected values. More data and refinement in IMF (and other parameters of lamba-CDM model) for early Universe conditions is certainly needed.
@@cesarjom woah, that is interesting. That makes sense. That would explain the issue. I was also wondering, how can we get an accurate measurement of the time around us when we or another object could be moving near the speed of light. Wouldn’t all of the universes be aging at different speeds in correlation to the speed through which they travel through space in relation to us? This could change time estimates that we have, especially if we are talking on the scale of Billions of years, could it not? Not to mention planets or other stars that orbit close to a black hole just like in interstellar.
@@Plasma_-mf9gh First, a typical observable galaxies in Universe would be traveling at relative velocities in the order of 0.04*c (where c is speed of light) -- is that really that "near the speed of light"? Also your question is concerned with time measurements for locations in space (eg our solar system and a far away galaxy) in relative motion to each other and possibly you are also concerned with relativistic (special theory in this case) time dilation effects between those locations in spacetime. You need not worry as measurements (observations) taken of redshifted light coming from far-off galaxies does not necessitate computing time dilation between source and point of measurement. This is because the measurement made by telescopes is the shifted wavelength of a galaxy's EM spectrum as it travels through distant space. By knowing the amount of redshift for some galaxy, we can compute the velocity that galaxy is moving away (receding) -- more accurately, we know it is the expanding spacetime in the Universe that gives the appearance of receding galaxies. The approximate distance to a galaxy can be determined from the Hubble relationship (velocity to distance via the Hubble constant). This is actually much more complicated to get precision measurements, but for simplicity that is the basics.
Regarding the Hubble constant -- which assigns a value to rate of expansion of spacetime in Universe and is heavily responsible for correlating galaxy velocity (redshift) to distance -- there is a problem that continues to throw uncertainty when used to determine distances for observed early galaxies. This is referred to as the "Hubble tension", a disagreement in the value with a large enough variation. It could be that energy density of space (ie, dark energy) is not constant but changing (increasing) over time; this then would affect the Hubble constant value for different times in the age of Universe.
Amazing videos as always! Thank you!
Since youtube created the "playback in feeds" feature, i usually watch all videos in my feeds only without opening them...... BUT this video made me open it..
Truly a masterpiece!
Just subscribed!
Interesting hypothesis but as others have posted very difficult if not impossible to determine if this is what actually happened.
most of what we know is built on "if then" type of reasoning at this level of the "game"... explanations to fit various phenomena can be wildly abstract yet right..
@@ashleyobrien4937 seems to be more of an "if maybe" considering some of the particles involved are theoretical. Correctness is not determined if it hasn't been proven.
Except that, by definition, a hypothesis can be tested.
Inflation cannot be tested, cannot be falsified and can be tweaked to fit any data. Inflation does not qualify as Science, but as dogma.
@@richardgomes5420"cannot be falsified" - I disagree with the assertion inflation cannot be falsified but I agree with you it is a hypothesis of events that occurred during the early period of the universe when our understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity break down. Sabine Hossenfelder has talked extensively of the problem of trying to extend physics based on the notion of how we want to universe to work rather then observation. I have no doubt when we gain more insight into the early universe it will be very different from what we imagine it currently
Wait so gravity has particles? I thought ‘gravity,’ according to special relativity, was caused by an object being so massive that it ‘bends’ the lines of space time towards it?
Einstein's theory of gravity (it's general relativity not special) doesn't have particles and is as you describe, however the quantum theory of gravity proposes graviton particles as the force carriers of the gravity field. So far there's zero evidence for the existence of gravitons so right now it's only a hypothesis. Quantum gravity is an attempt to meld the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity since they are in direct conflict and cannot both be correct (yet neither has ever failed a test of its correctness).
@@user-uo1dv4kp7m ah, okay. thank you for taking the time to clarify!
Fun fact: unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible in practice with any reasonably sized detector. For example, a graviton detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to detect at most one graviton every 10 years. In any case it would be impossible to discriminate these events from the neutrino background, since the required shielding would be need to be so massive that it would collapse as a black hole !
@@user-uo1dv4kp7m that's fascinating! so is there any way to verify the quantum theory of gravity?
Gravity only bends spacetime by way of becoming a particular state of collective gathered mass, which ie: inevitably means 'particles'. It doesn't function any other way, we know of. Meaning - gravity is an effect intrinsic to gathered collective mass.
Great job man 👍always interesting content
I've always figured the expansion wasn't so much about space extending outward, but rather inward. The so called "bang" was more like an implosion where the resolution of space increased. Like Planck scale increased, analogous to a centimeter growing more notches of measure, say 100x more notches yet within the same length of the original centimeter. So there same effect, kinda sorta, but with the understanding we still live inside a small singularity type sized space. That the space within grew, and that's a subtle difference. Purely speculative, off course, but it does help fit some of the vacuum energy conundrums this research paper attempts to tackle. I like this theory because it's a novel way to think about the topic.
yep..see my other comment...
The core "problem" of this hypothesis is that it doesn't change anything. The relative perspective towards the event changes. But every measurable result is the same.
Comparable to many other effects that can be interpreted as different effects, depending on the perspective, with every interpretation agreeing on the result in the end.
This just leaves us with a different interpretation we can choose if we want, but which is not any more or less correct than the alternative.
You might like Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. It's kinda complicated but essentially once the universe has all it's particles spread out incredible distances from one another the universe goes through a conformal transformation where relative angles, but not distances, are preserved.
It's a bit like saying, hey all the particles are a billion times further apart but time just ticks by a billion times more slowly so it's like another universe is bigbanged into existence. That was a reductive explanation and you should read about it yourself but I think you'd like it.
This is the basis of my theory called Fractal Point Dynamics. It’s based on observation and relative frame reference, and the idea that value is not real, only a mutually agreed ratio representing 0 infinitely close to 0, or 1, infinitely close to 1. There are no laws that prevent downscaling of spatial frame reference
@@jaymethodus3421 Which new predictions does your theory make?
In regards to Cherenkov radiation, The particles are not moving faster than light in a vacumm.
Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric medium with a speed greater than light's speed in that medium.
There’s also a magnetic moment version, and a “vacuum”version in a wave guide.
Isn't that what he said? It's what I heard anyway..
8:45 "when electrically charged particles, move at speeds faster than the speed of light, in a specific medium."
It may be that I can move 100m, faster than a cheetah, if we're both in a deep swimming pool..
Or faster than a shark, in a forest.
This was fantastic, thank you. ✨✨✨
Excellent explanation 👌 sir...I love ❤ the way you explained..thank you sir 👍
Gravity Light is better than Bud Light😂
Gravity going its own way..
Well, gravity and light both move at the same speed so at least they have something in common.
Yes, interesting this. And, a photon produces gravitons (as science at least recognises that light has gravity) which are travelling at the same speed as it. So when a photon hits you it must carry an incredible bow wave of gravitons that are building up in its direction of travel. And the further the photon travels the bigger this bow wave would get. I guess you would get to a point where earlier gravitons would have negligible effect but still. I would imagine it depends upon how much gravity a graviton has and on how quickly the gravitons are emitted (from either photons or masses). Based on objects feeling m * G gravity from sources continuously without interruption then the emission must be continuous at that quantity meaning that the rate of emission must be the speed of light. So that is: m * G/d^2 * c. Scientists refuse to accept that light has mass so it will have to the equivalent which is m = e / c^2 (or its other form which I couldn't be bothered to look up). So that would be: e / c^2 * G/d^2 * c, or e / c * G / d^2. So if you add all of the gravitons continuously generated from the photons you should be able to measure the gravitonic bow wave that hits you with the photon. So early photons should hit you with less gravitonic effect than longer travelling photons (even though they approach a maximum gravitonic effect * mass; or masses emr equivalent). Of course that doesn't happen so the idea that gravitons and gravity waves travel at the speed of light is wholly bogus like so much of the inventive crap they are feeding us.
@@gonegahgah you’re way over thinking it and forgetting about relativity.
@@DrDeuteron Yes, the graviton moves away from the photon at the speed of light because the photon is stationary relative to itself but both are moving towards us at the speed of light so both must reach us at the same time even if the photon and graviton don't measure it that way relative to themselves. I'm not sure how you can overthink that because that is what the "science" when you get down to it says. Which of course is abject nonsense. I'm fully aware of how science purveyors continually move the goal posts to make any and all this nonsense seem reasonable.
Does gravity change speed through varying mediums?
Is it even possible to over-think in science?
In engineering, construction, experimentation perhaps, but in theoretical science? ..IDK..
Turns out more logical than i expected :) Good.
07:00 "Two particles that were an atom's width apart before inflation would have been more than a thousand lighyears apart ." Even if the arithmetic per se may be sound, this is a bit confusing, and maybe even misleading. Since we are putting things in perspective, I take it the calculation is hypothetical, because, within the theoretical framework of inflation, there were no particles prior to inflation, and if there had been, the universe was so dense that no two particles could have been much more than a planck length apart. The width of an atom is between 1,000 and 10,000 times that of a proton, which is 10^20 times a planck length. (I'm disregarding the bewildering possibility that the universe might have been infinite already prior to inflation.)
Unifying gravity with the electromagnetic force would be absolutely world changing.
^they already are the same thing.
@@taurusmonkey8780 light creates matter
Matter creates gravity.
He gets credit for creating a potentially interesting question. But that gets deleted for making me watch a 11 minutes of idiocy.
Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city complain about the same time paradox unless it was effected by it. Maybe a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. Maybe random waves of time distortion hitting the earth? Maybe they're randomly given off by the sun. Maybe they're from outside our Terran system and reach us in intervals. ???? Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!
I think becaues experience is highly subjective, so would time be. But i simply view time as motion, it doesnt flow without atoms moving. Why you could stop time if you stood still (speed of light ) because speed of light would be absolute rest relative to all the motion and when your atoms literally stop moving , they have nothing to interact /age with therefore no time happens as we percieve it, which is just change due to motion. Since everything is in motion(since the beginning of time) is why we always experience time moving forward.
I’ve always wondered why time seems to go faster as we age…
@@sallygoodin2848 Hey Sally. I think that had been put down to the psychological impact of the storage of memories. Time seems to go faster because your brain is storing more memories over a greater timescale and so perspective makes it feel like new memories are put in the context of larger spans of time, making it all feel like it’s rushing by at an ever increasing rate.
There is no time unless there is an event..event is already there since bigbang..
Great pondering.....now you got me wondering....nice
Got to go to work but can't wait to watch this later!!
Interesting concept to think about
I have no idea what I'm talking about but in terms of visable light, i learned somewhere that its due to whatever particle being a high enough energy level that that it can't "contain" whatever energy exterted upon it without releasing it as visable light. Something like wood emitting no visable light but coals emit visable light because they are at or are releasing a higher energy level.
bro thats just thermal radiation
Profound....he just rediscovered fire.
Now put it back before the gods are angered.
This is all entirely theoretical though, isn’t it? Because it relies on inflatons and gravitons, both of which are placeholder particles that we don’t know for sure exist.
exactly.
That’s why it’s a theory, and not a fact
@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle You’re using the wrong definition of theory. In the scientific context, ‘theory’ is the category in which a sequence of facts fall into. Like the theory of gravity is based on a series of facts that define the theory of gravity. You’re using ‘theory’ in the “I have an idea” sense.
Yes, and that’s why this is unscientific claptrap. These mystery “particles” literally don’t exist.
@@dodatrodai get your meaning, but the same could be said about atoms and germs, back when they were deduced before science found a way to look at them.
For me there is a faster than light side of the universe where contrary to what we know that we need "infinite" energy to match the speed of light, in the other side one needs infinite energy to slow down to the speed of light.
So in the buffer zone between the 2 is the shockwave where massless particles are driven, like light.
You are talking about tachyons, particles that can only travel FTL. a tachyon with 0 energy would travel at infinite speed, and with infinite energy would travel at c. We can extrapolate from that that if they were to exist, tachyons cannot have 0 energy - or they would fill up the universe to such a density, everything would collapse back into gargantuan black holes swallowing the universe from all sides. The biggest problem this way of thinking is the way c is portrayed as a mirror, although that description is quite accurate.. Einstein's theories may give solutions to FTL, but it is very likely those parts of the equation do not reflect reality. The FTL part of relativity is probably virtual, meaning it cannot exist in our reality. But it could in a different one which is causally linked to ours.
inflation does not EXPLAIN why the Universe expanded quickly at first. It is only used to create a theory consistent with most parameters we observe today. MOST not all. The quick expansion is a postulate to explain the other things not the rapid expansion per se. and it does not explain ALL, there is a lot of problems that still remain.
Given the Big Bang - inflation - particles separating - and the weakness of gravity -- atoms collecting into stars [ not likely ] -- stars collecting into galaxies [ nonsense ] -- and galaxies colliding [ impossible ] !! Or did matter suddenly change directions ?! This has always bothered me. A little help here.
I was thinking about this for some time. Einstein suggested (later proved) that energy creates gravity. Can't this process happen in reverse as well (gravity creating energy in a form of photons?)
The question would be what create the other in the first place, it seems gravity starts working at a certain temperature, and temperature is generated by energy in the first place. So gravity would be the result in any case. But that doesn't mean in return that gravity doesn't generate photons, while loosing energy, but I don't think it can create more photons than what's already available in the universe.
Gravity is a energy form. So energy doesn't create gravity, but is turned into gravity. And gravity can be turned into energy again, you see this when something falls down, gravity is turned into kinetic energy.
Perhaps gravity is not created by energy, but is a state of energy itself. Waterfalls, tides, whirlpools, as well as steam and ice are not created by water. They ARE water merely reacting to the local conditions. Perhaps from a limited point of view, energy, like water, can appear to be many different, and separate, things. But when you take a closer look, whether it's bosons or fermions, it's all energy merely reacting to the local conditions of spacetime.
WTF no I think you should think about that idea, Isaac Newton explained gravity, Einstein believed that he completed that explanation, but his theory was proven wrong before he got a chance to release it, with the observations made by Hubble, the universe was expanding, not sitting still as Einstein had learnt and foolishly believed without question, he was turned into a household name during WW2 after the Nazis had taken power in Germany and the American Christians along with the Vatican had signed non aggression pacts with the Nazis and the final solution, to kill all the Jews, so you can imagine why the media made Einstein into the most famous Astrophysicist, because he was a German Jew that they could promote to change the general US citizens opinion of the Jews, the great depression had been blamed on Jews, to this day people are blaming other people with different races for all the trouble in there lives, LOL it's so bloody pathetic, nobody uses their ability to think, I don't mean the ability to retain language, I mean consideration.
Very interesting, thank you - though the existence of Gravitons is only theoretical, because we haven’t detected them yet. However, if they did behave in the manner described, it would mean that Gravity acts as a Force, when we are always told it isn’t a Force, and it would mean that Gravity acts differently on a cosmic scale.
🤓I knew it🤓 I’ve always believed that gravity is actually the light. Both have the same speed. Dark light is what appears to us as an absence of photons, but it reality is a higher level of light that we cannot detect in our modern tools; yet. 🤓
Gravitons must exist. Any time you quantize a continuous field, particles appear in the math. Quantization "infects" everything it touches, or else it would break things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We've seen gravity affect matter (duh) and gravitational waves affect LIGO. The electrons making up the mirrors, and the photons in the beams, will behave in a quantized way when doing the reflection, so the gravitational wave moving the mirror must also quantize.
Now you might argue whether it's a _fundamental_ particle. If gravity is an emergent property of something else, it may end up being a quaziparticle or a composite particle. But particles there will be.
@@duran9664 Don't spam all the posts with the same exact message!
@@JohnDlugosz There's No gravity in space but plenty of stars and other light sources!!
So now youll have to say only certain light has gravity.
🤣🤣🤣
It's soo easy to spit out allot of jargon and fool the masses with crazy maths & theories!!
what in the made up hell is Inflaton? oh yeah, it's made up...its a theoritical particle which means it has'nt been found!! then he proceeds to explain what Physicists says about a made up particle 🤣🤣🤣
Thanks!
Awesome topic, it's really noble prize worthy topic
I want to be a physicist. I can easily imagine pretend particles to fit my model of the universe.
Alan Guth, and Michael Turner have entered the chat.
@@edit4310 comment too predictable, your spacetime has been annihilated...
Great!
Now do the maths.
@@synchc 1/0
@@sana-cm7oc equals? Questions are never dangerous: only the answers.
If all forces were once a single unified force then all forces are related and can perhaps create each other still.
Your ALAN GUTH PRONOUNCIATION IS 100% on point
THIS, ive always suspected it!
I imagine this is related to Hawking radiation somehow since black holes radiate their mass away (really slowly).
No, not at all. Hawking radiation is the result of the destruction of 1/2 of a pair of quantum fluctuations. Very very different things. What he's talking about here doesn't really need a particle. If you've ever heard of sonoluminescence... It's closer to that. Imagine a compression wave... That's the gravitational standing wave. Now imagine that every now and then two waves interfere to make a bigger wave. The new wave has so much energy that it crests and makes a cavitation foam wave near it's strongest point... That's the photons. If I understand it correctly, it's like Unruh radiation, but stationary with massive accelerations near the wave peaks.
Inflaton and gravitons are both not even theoretical but conjectures as there is zero evidence for either existing, and yet extrapolating how they might work to produce photons seems like an even further stretch of nonsense.
The power spectrum of the CMB measured by COBE is *very* good evidence for inflation. Try reading Guth's book -- it's very much a history book.
Particles (gravitons) pop out of the math. That's the nature of quantization.
@@JohnDlugosz Really, they just “pop” out of the math? 🤨 Awesome! I wonder if that’s anything like the way in which wormholes and white holes also just tend to “pop” out of the math? 🤔 That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with quantisation. What you’re actually referring to is known as “math is NOT and NEVER WILL BE reality”.😱
In case I’m seriously mistaken, please elaborate as to exactly which bit of math inflatons and gravitons pop out of, especially since there is no working theory of quantum gravity, so this ought to be good.
@@JohnDlugosz It maybe good evidence, it also maybe wrong. Going on the assumption its true and then viewing the universe through that lense and have it come back with weird results (recent james webbb findings) means your basic assumptions might be wrong. But instead of questioning those assumption we just ad more bandaids to the theory and come up with some amazing things- dark matter/energy with no evidence for it. Not very intellectually honest. Thanks to this comment for addressing it. And you just have to look at science history to see this happening and what looking through a lense your so confident can lead too - the finding of planet that didnt exists - Vulcan. They were so confidnent in Newtons math , afterall it just predicted a planet - Neptune, so it can be wrong, with that asumption the math is right there had to be another planet between Mercury and the Sun to explain Mercury's orbit, and they look so hard they found one, mistaking a sunpot for one. Whats that saying, know your history, or youre doomed to repeat it? I think applies to science as well.
@@JohnDlugosz I'm not doubting inflation, but the inflaton particle proposed in the video as the supposed particle responsible for inflation. Gravitons do not "pop out" of the math, otherwise they would be included in the standard model of cosmology.
@@JohnDlugosz yeah but it more likely to work as a string because gravity is a force not a particle
Please make a video about what are magnetic field lines are made of. I’ve read they are made of virtual photons but it still doesn’t make sense to me.
Algorithm slapped me right across the face the same month I've been wondering about the critical mass that allows stars to begin fusion, I haven't even looked anything up yet!
Our theoretical physicists keep bringing new levels of meaning to "going from the sublime to the ridiculous"... We'll have to wait until we are gods to test this one...
No. A test might be the measurement of a very tiny anomalous change in an expected quantity, in the same way that Einstein suggested that a test for general relativity would be the observation of gravitational lensing (a slight deflection in the expected path of light). It's not necessarily going to require the construction of experimental apparatus at the scale of the universe to test something like this.
We're gods now..
I thought photons turned into gravity waves by gravitational lensing and photons were generated by the reverse process. Inflatons to photons through standing gravitational shockwaves in a medium where mass concentrations are many light-years apart is an idea that I will have to absorb. Thank you.
Light follows a curved path in any gravitational field. Gravitational lensing is just a strong form of that, with light being bent by passing close to something like our sun or a distant galaxy. The photons don't change into non-photons of any sort.
@9:47 Maybe you can get this effect when two black holes collide?
Dr Ben, I realize that as a science communicator you may choose from time to time to phase conjectures as fact to make the subject more approachable but I would remind you that causality even in theoretical works is invariant. In QFT a 'known ' particle can be assigned a field , but this does not apply for a 'unknown' particle as this creates a circular validation argument which cannot hold.
Regarding the inflaton: Isn't it odd that every single time particle physicists assign particle behaviors and characteristics to spacetime (inflaton, graviton) they can't prove it? It strikes me that the particle physicist's disdain for spacetime and Relativity finds it's origins in their inability to accept that spacetime constantly defies them.
Space is just the absence of matter and time is a measurement.
They have no intrinstic properties. They do not exist beyond that of being a manmade notion.
"Spacetime" is just a term used to describe an effect caused by gravity that we do not understand.
Same with dark matter and etc.
It's the equivalent of saying "I don't know what caused this lightning strike so I'm going to say it was God (metaphor for the other keywords that I listed)".
@@aliensarerealttsa6198 Particle physics is a bit better at predicting experimental outcomes than "God did it", but yeah you're right.
Why do we talk about the universe being a small size in the early universe yet today we don’t know if it is infinite in size or if it has any curvature?
Maybe we should wait until we confirm that "gravitons" are actually a thing. Seems like they are assuming some Quantum Gravity theory that we don't actually have.
I always think it funny that astrophysicists talk like it is certain they know what happened to the nearest billionth of a second at the start, then are now uncertain what happened during the next billion years or so. (Uncertain because of JWST' find of early galaxies.) I am not questioning it, just find somehow ironic.
It is now easier to model particle collisions (such as at the LHC) and how that would have worked in the early universe than to clearly see the most distant galaxies.
Juicy Universe Details(TM)
Sounds like the name for a refreshing beverage
Merch ideas...
When people say physics were different at the beginning of the Universe, my first guess is that an assumption is wrong. Physics being different should take large amounts of evidence.
Sounds like we need a bigger particle accelerator.
So are they saying it’s like the ocean giving life 3:53 ? So the pressure reverb 10:40 is the expansion ? Ie wave motion ?
Can you link to the study?
...and That-Which-Is set for Itself a grand Puzzle and magnificent Playground...
Hawking/Unrul Blackbody/Graybody Radiation is an example of Super-Tension!.
If “density” Is the amount of X per unit of space, what is a “density fluctuation in the fabric of spacetime”?
@dr Ben miles That’s how he and everyone else pronounces Dr Guth’s name. Good job!
It kind of explains why tiny space particles and rocks weigh heavy after they hit the ground and appear light when floating in space. Light and gravity seem the same which also makes sense of the fact that we humans too are light beings in dense bodies.
When we talk about how quick inflation occured at the beginning of the universe, at that point the concept of time was different, maybe meaningless, we can say it took a fraction of a second, but it could just as easily been a fraction of infinity.
Same thoughts...time as we experience it wasn't happening then.
5:30 Inflation models have 6,000,000 versions. It is infinitely tweak-able. It is unfalsifiable. But most if not all, including the most popular ones, postulate that the “inflaton field” turns on at a certain point and turns off after expansion. Thus we will not detect any so-called inflaton. You can create or destroy anything you like with the math-such is the reason particle physics publish thousands of papers a year in which each author postulates some new particle to explain some anomalous statistical data-always making assumptions and adding complexity needlessly-only to be proven wrong. The entire field is out of control.
Thousands of particle physicists worked on “super symmetry” for years which we had absolutely no evidence for but made the math more elegant or took the idea of symmetry as beautiful even as we know that ultimately the symmetries we observe are only approximate and always break down.
Everything about this theory of inflation is pure speculation and utter nonsense. Some speculate that it is or is related to the Higgs field-but this is because they have so many much free time to postulate parameters which are unknowable, unobservable, undetectable and only exists in math.
Current cosmology is broken and we need a new paradigm
i have a question about the speed at which you propose that the universe expanded during the "big bang"... what about nothing being faster than light?
That "speed" depends on the distance between any two points. If you remember the high school definition of velocity, though, that didn't depend on two points. It depended on two systems in the same point. It follows that we are not talking about the same property here. It's one of those scientific misnomers that make it hard for the layman to think about it in the terms that he knows. In this case it's not just the layman I would add. I have taken the general relativity course twice (for the fun of it, not because I had to) and I am still struggling with these concepts intuitively.
No, It's the creation of matter that creates gravity. Outline: Time Light *and Distance* Problem Explained
I. Introduction
The assumption people have is that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on earth. This is the reason they think that an age can be assigned to the universe. This is curious knowing that there is no single measure of distance or rate of the passing of time in the universe. General relativity explains that the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity. Elsewhere in the universe the rate of time and measure of distance depend on the absence of matter in the vicinity. Assuming the math is correct and there is a singularity in a black hole, time is stopped and there is no distance. In contrast, the lagrange point between supermassive black holes is a place where there is the least amount of gravity in the universe and where *both* the rate of time passes by the fastest *and* the measure of distance is the most expanded. What the measurements are is unknown since no one is there to make a comparison.
II. Differing Measures of Time and Distance due to GR
The area of space in our line of sight between us and distant galaxies is mostly running at a much faster rate of time. Not only is time passing by faster between galaxies, the measures of distance are much larger effectively reducing the distance between galaxies. Observed phenomena in outer space such as redshift, superluminal motion measured to be seven times the speed of light, and apparent faster motion of outer spiral arms of galaxies are due to the faster rates of time and the expanded measures of distance the farther out from the center of the galaxy it is. Incidentally the asteroid that was knocked off course moved faster than expected. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies because the expanded distance and faster rates of time explain both the redshift and the faster than expected motion of objects the farther away from the center of the galaxy that it is. It's not the same as our flat observations of cats and dogs locally here on earth where we don't observe differing measures of distance and time.
III. Local Rate of Time and Measure of Distance due to GR
Locally, the measure of distance and rate of time doesn't change much where we are inside of our galaxy. However, the area in our line of sight between us and distant galaxies is extreme and running at a much faster rate of time as well as an expanded measure of distance outside our galaxy compared to where we are near Sagittarius A, Milky Way's black hole (where our rate of time is much slower and our measure of distance is much more contracted). The same way the earth appears flat locally, our universe also *appears* to be relatively flat locally. However, over great distances throughout the universe there are vastly differing measures of distance and differing rates of time from black holes to the lagrange points between black holes where there is very little acceleration compared to our relatively flat contracted local frames of reference near Sagittarius A. The clocks are running faster outside of galaxies and the measuring sticks are larger meaning things are actually less distant than they appear to us to be from our position and our measurements near the center of the galaxy. *We can't project our measurements onto the rest of the universe.* Gravity drops off exponentially the *farther* it is from the singularity center of the galaxy. The more gravity drops off outside of the galaxy and in between galaxies, the more distance will be expanded and the faster the rate of time will be. It's also the reason distant galaxies *appear* to be ten times more massive than than closer ones.
IV. Vacuum Energy of Space
It turns out that the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing in size from gobbling up spacetime regardless of the amount of matter being consumed. Recent findings of a team of scientists have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with supermassive black holes that are all growing in size regardless of the amount of matter being consumed, as opposed to being associated with an ever expanding universe into oblivion for no reason. Supermassive black holes are the most powerful forces in the universe with far reaching effects of gravity and vacuum energy. The problem and solution is that between galaxies, all of the galaxies all around are all together pulling and drawing in spacetime, as well as exerting equal gravitational forces from all around on empty space. This is the reason there is very little acceleration between galaxies and where there is expanded distance and a faster rate of time.
V. Conclusion
The expanded space or distance between galaxies due to the absence of matter explains the observed redshift without the need for a nonsensical universe expanding into oblivion for no reason. It also means the distances between galaxies are not as far as they appear to us to be. This means that 13.8 billion years is the same as 6,000 years and vice versa *in the same universe and in the same amount of time.* A day is also like a thousand years and vice versa in the same created universe. The reason why people stumble over the "time light problem" in outer space is due to not taking general relativity into account.
Shake a speck of spacetime hard enought and light comes out. Sounds about right since the electromagnetic quantum fields were shaken along with the spacetime. How about the reverse, if one creates a strong enough electromagnetic standing wave perhaps gravitational waves would come out?
My idea so I get to name it! Voyager 1 is now in interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." "V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or, "Terran Time." It will be faster still when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. (That name is still up for grabs.) Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble, so on and so on until we get to the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Now that "V-ger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time."
•Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured.
•Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud .007-.07% faster, maybe. Just for reference.
•Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference.
•Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard," or...;-P Name NOT up for grabs BUT just begging to be measured. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to have your motor boat.) ;-P
A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about.
The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time."
Pass it on, please and thank you.
There is no "True Interstellar Time Standard". That's what the Relativity part of General Relativity means.
verily, the notion of gravity engendering light is a concept of great intrigue worthy of exploration
Very interesting and didactic video! You explained something really complex in a much more understandable way
I don't think it was a hot dense ball because black holes don't even emit light,
Why would it be infinitely small if it's not a finite universe now? Don't we think the universe is flat and infinite in extent now? How'd we get from "a tiny ball" to an infinite size?
Its like a fairytale in a fairytale.
Gravity compresses aether particles which gives E =mc squared. Light is a high energy wave from the friction of 2 particles which are spinning at the speed of light being pushed together.
So whenever there's something not explainable, particle physicists cook up a new fundamental particle??
Esentialy, if imaginary particle derived from very hypotetical idea, managed to create a gravity wave propagating trough Ether, but not your ordinary Ether, but the one with refractor index less then one, then that gravity wave might loose part of its energy as EM wave. Yeah seems about right..
Following same idea you could probably produce EM wave by shifting two charges in space with gravity wave of great amplitude.
Why would there be fluctuations in the quantum field if there was nothing to create the fluctuations?
Consider light as visible point of interaction of radiant energy, such as is emitted by stars, with electro-magnetic energy, such as are caused by gravitational bodies such as planets. Protons can then be seen as being neither particle or wave, but being capable of showing properties of both through their interactions of wave with field.
Hmmm, this concept is a new one to me, the first I've heard of gravitational waves producing light particles.
I am not against a person speaking freely on different theories but this guy comes off like this stuff is true.
Do we have a means to send a communication "wave" that transmits faster than the speed of light?
We do not. This is generally believed to be impossible. (However, while sending any kind of signal FTL may be impossible, it may be possible to do some weird correlation coordination games where, depending on the observations in two distant locations, choices of what measurements to make on each half of some pairs of entangled particles, could be used to determine a choice of actions, in a way that makes for a correlation between what actions two sides take that couldn’t be done classically, even though the observations on either end does not have any effect (is not correlated with) the distribution of actions on the other side.
Doesn’t let you send a message or anything though, just let’s the two sides randomize their behavior where the correlations of the behaviors depends on the observations, even though the distribution of behavior of one side is independent of observations at other side.)
"Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of source" 💯
It should be "some physicists" in the title. We do not have yet a working quantum gravity theory so the graviton -> photon transformation is pure speculation.
I wonder what was the definition of a lightyear, or a year for that matter, at the period of cosmic inflation 🤔
A Lightyear is a human defined definition based on a year and a year is just the amount of time we take to move around the sun which didn't exist at the beginning
Furthermore we're currently still in the cosmic period of inflation
@@damianbouras So, I did bit of research. First, the period of inflation ended in the vicinity of 10e-32 seconds after the big bang. Today we observe a much slower, thou accelerating, expansion. The year, in astronomy usually a julian-year for time and distance measurement purposes, is defined as exactly 31557600 seconds. And the 'second' definition is tied to the transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, and would be the time it takes to undergo exactly 9192631770 cycles.
My question arose because at inflation time itself was inflating alongside space (and there were no ticking caesium atoms yet).
They haven't a clue ....they're making it all up !
Terry Pratchett had them all sussed.
I truly have a problem about the first moments... because time is not a constant, but speed of light is. The universe expanded in a fraction of a second, but all maybe in our time definition. In that first moments and the moments after happened so much, if we would take lightspeed as a messurement and not time itself, I think we would talking about billions of years... this is at least my opinion... but if speed of light is a constant and time is relative, then this is the only right way to see that, I think...
*edit*: ...and finally, light was every quantum existing in the first moments until more massiv subatomic parts and even the first atoms started to build, but for this, it has to cool down a lot at first, in my eyes, but this alone would need eons.
Sadly, since the James webbed space telescope has pretty much destroyed the Big bang theory as far as science goes, but doesn't leave much for light coming out of gravity.
Please link the papers you cite
Inflaton? Now they’re just making fun of us. I don’t think they will ever find a graviton either. Gravity is not a force and requires no particle mediation.
The inflaton is imagined. Outline: Time Light *and Distance* Problem Explained
I. Introduction
The assumption people have is that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on earth. This is the reason they think that an age can be assigned to the universe. This is curious knowing that there is no single measure of distance or rate of the passing of time in the universe. General relativity explains that the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity. Elsewhere in the universe the rate of time and measure of distance depend on the absence of matter in the vicinity. Assuming the math is correct and there is a singularity in a black hole, time is stopped and there is no distance. In contrast, the lagrange point between supermassive black holes is a place where there is the least amount of gravity in the universe and where *both* the rate of time passes by the fastest *and* the measure of distance is the most expanded. What the measurements are is unknown since no one is there to make a comparison.
II. Differing Measures of Time and Distance due to GR
The area of space in our line of sight between us and distant galaxies is mostly running at a much faster rate of time. Not only is time passing by faster between galaxies, the measures of distance are much larger effectively reducing the distance between galaxies. Observed phenomena in outer space such as redshift, superluminal motion measured to be seven times the speed of light, and apparent faster motion of outer spiral arms of galaxies are due to the faster rates of time and the expanded measures of distance the farther out from the center of the galaxy it is. Incidentally the asteroid that was knocked off course moved faster than expected. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies because the expanded distance and faster rates of time explain both the redshift and the faster than expected motion of objects the farther away from the center of the galaxy that it is. It's not the same as our flat observations of cats and dogs locally here on earth where we don't observe differing measures of distance and time.
III. Local Rate of Time and Measure of Distance due to GR
Locally, the measure of distance and rate of time doesn't change much where we are inside of our galaxy. However, the area in our line of sight between us and distant galaxies is extreme and running at a much faster rate of time as well as an expanded measure of distance outside our galaxy compared to where we are near Sagittarius A, Milky Way's black hole (where our rate of time is much slower and our measure of distance is much more contracted). The same way the earth appears flat locally, our universe also *appears* to be relatively flat locally. However, over great distances throughout the universe there are vastly differing measures of distance and differing rates of time from black holes to the lagrange points between black holes where there is very little acceleration compared to our relatively flat contracted local frames of reference near Sagittarius A. The clocks are running faster outside of galaxies and the measuring sticks are larger meaning things are actually less distant than they appear to us to be from our position and our measurements near the center of the galaxy. *We can't project our measurements onto the rest of the universe.* Gravity drops off exponentially the *farther* it is from the singularity center of the galaxy. The more gravity drops off outside of the galaxy and in between galaxies, the more distance will be expanded and the faster the rate of time will be. It's also the reason distant galaxies *appear* to be ten times more massive than than closer ones.
IV. Vacuum Energy of Space
It turns out that the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing in size from gobbling up spacetime regardless of the amount of matter being consumed. Recent findings of a team of scientists have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with supermassive black holes that are all growing in size regardless of the amount of matter being consumed, as opposed to being associated with an ever expanding universe into oblivion for no reason. Supermassive black holes are the most powerful forces in the universe with far reaching effects of gravity and vacuum energy. The problem and solution is that between galaxies, all of the galaxies all around are all together pulling and drawing in spacetime, as well as exerting equal gravitational forces from all around on empty space. This is the reason there is very little acceleration between galaxies and where there is expanded distance and a faster rate of time.
V. Conclusion
The expanded space or distance between galaxies due to the absence of matter explains the observed redshift without the need for a nonsensical universe expanding into oblivion for no reason. It also means the distances between galaxies are not as far as they appear to us to be. This means that 13.8 billion years is the same as 6,000 years and vice versa *in the same universe and in the same amount of time.* A day is also like a thousand years and vice versa in the same created universe. The reason why people stumble over the "time light problem" in outer space is due to not taking general relativity into account.
This model that you've outlined here, based upon the elegant framework of GR, makes so much more sense than a Big Bang and Inflation model, which is out of necessity intensely convoluted to attempt to explain away the ugly asymmetry inherent in that model's conception of the universe's evolution.
Thank you for posting this, it has helped to enhance my appreciation and understanding of GR as well as renew my faith in the power of physics to mathematically describe and make sense of the mind boggling observations of modern astronomy. When shall our next Einstein come along to unify GR with particle physics in an elegant and symmetrical theory?
@@knivesoutcatchdamouse2137 Yes, it is likely that the universe will make more sense without the fudge factors of invisible dark matter and imaginary inflatetons by utilizing GR alone. GR has been observed, both the dilation of time and now the dilation of distance with the detection of gravitational waves. Particle physics to me is not in our frame of reference. It exists at the speed of light so there are relativistic effects from Special Relativity going on. That seems to be the main difference. It's the difference between GR and SR and or the combination of both.
Could this not be frb ? Gravity waves creating frbs?
"Hot dense ball"?
No I don't think we know that, we know hot and dense, but the ball shape is not certain.
The best guess, as i understand it, is the universe went from a singularity to everywhere all at once, and everywhere all at once could be a plane or a saddle or potentially a sphere, but we don't know for certain.
We see the microwave background radiation as a sphere around us, because light takes time to travel and we are looking out from a single perspective.
Someone point out when we discovered Gravitons? My understanding is the latest discovery was the Gluons create mass and seem to be at lease partially responsible for Gravity as we know it. I understood the description such that Gluons seem to attached matter to the fabric of space-time. So this seems like more theoretical BS for the sake of showing you could come up with a possible model rather than an observable model.
Gluons aren’t responsible for the e.g. muon mass, aiui.
Whats the sense of gravitrons if gravity it’s the effect of deformation in space time?
EVERYTHING is made of light!
The missing piece.
Same as time is just a perception.
There is no time
10:33 - Having a natural black hole to study would really settle a lot of debate and mystery. I suspect the difference between particle collider black holes and a natural version is the difference between studying a campfire instead of the Sun. Isn't it possible that we have our concept of "inside" and "outside" inverted, when considering forces like gravity? Inflationary forces in the sense of a "big bang" means there should be an epicenter that remains even to this day. Somehow gravity was overcome; perhaps in the same way it is overcome when superfluidity occurs (the settling of primary forces dictates the dispersion of particles, which themselves have a secondary force; where the secondary forces localized by particles become overcomes and "nullifies" the primary force which collected/concentrated the particles).
Perhaps EM could be compared to fluid dynamics. Air moving so fast that it is barely effected by gravity. Air that pushes into other materials like water being absorbed by woven cotton. In other words, the conversion to thermal energy (re-scaling). Radiating heat would be like evaporation of water. So, black holes might actually be balls of light, in some respects. Balls of rendered mass, converting to another form of matter / energy due to the gravitational trap. A black hole would function like a particle accelerator... Has anyone ever described it that way? It makes so much more sense to describe a particle accelerator as a ring of a black hole.
The idea that interacting gravity waves might create light via a variant of Cherenkov radiation is interesting since it uses Einstein's well-proven geometric theory of gravity. In contrast, dragging in Pauli and Fierz's 1930s attempt to discard Einstein's GR by _declaring_ space flat and adding their mathematically inconsistent idea of a boson-based pseudo gravity on top makes the paper unsound and much less interesting.
The idea that Pauli-Fierz "gravitons" - which, to this day, remain mathematically inconsistent - unify Einstein's gravity and quantum theory is no more plausible now than it was in the 1940s. It is, however, a _lot_ more popular these days.
The Pauli-Fierz approach necessarily creates only a gravity mimic since all you have to do is curve the flat space underneath it and voila! - you have Einstein's gravity all over again.
Pauli and Fierz chose the cheap path of defining Einstein's general relativity out of existence. It would be nice if folks got back to the far more difficult problem - and, also, far more intriguing - issue of how to unify _topological_ gravity with quantum theory.
I can't explain the science, but it does seem consistent in both a psychological way (doing shadow work unearths your hidden flaws which enable you to heal) plus the religious "Lucifer the Light Bringer" metaphor.
Can you do a video on the decay of Higgs Bozons.
Good stuff.. ive speant the last few weeks thrashing this out in large language models to better understsnd faster than light light , super massive voids , high and low pressure events..
Or you could read a book and learn something. Enjoy your AI hallucinations.
Thank you, that was pretty darn kool.
I'm off to throw things off a cliff to see if I can make them light.
Try Dynamite..
Wait. How could two particles that were close to each other end up 1000 light years apart in only 1 second?
simple, Hawking radiation is at play...in this, particles are created always in pairs, particle and anti-particle, whiz about for a Planck time or so and then re-combine and annihilate, well, at the boundary at a black hole, it is conceivable that one particle is caught and the other is not, and is emitted, this is the mechanism for Hawking radiation, and also the reason during expansion, if there's a slight gravity perturbation this could happen...
8:26 and 8:48 - I'm lost. How can anything move faster than light?
Two Universes are intersecting which causes gravity by energy interactions. There is a differential between the 2 Universes. One is moving faster than the other. Both are 2 dimensional causing a 3rd in the collision process.