The Inexplicable Cosmic Coincidence That Suggests the Universe Was Designed | Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- Was the Universe Designed? Exploring the effect Dark Energy has on our Universe. Visit www.odoo.com/r/kJRp and gain access to your 1-year free custom domain name.
Astrum Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/2250635/share
Displate Posters: displate.com/promo/astrum?art...
Astrum Merch! astrum-shop.fourthwall.com/
Join us on the Astrum discord: / discord
SUBSCRIBE for more videos about space and astronomy.
Subscribe! goo.gl/WX4iMN
Facebook! goo.gl/uaOlWW
Twitter! goo.gl/VCfejs
Astrum Spanish: / @astrumespanol
Astrum Portuguese: / @astrumbrasil
Donate!
Patreon: goo.gl/GGA5xT
Ethereum Wallet: 0x5F8cf793962ae8Df4Cba017E7A6159a104744038
Become a Patron today and support my channel! Donate link above. I can't do it without you. Thanks to those who have supported so far!
#astrum #astronomy #quantum #quantummechanics #quantumphysics #physics #darkenergy #darkmatter
Some of these videos I understand pretty well. Some of them are so far above my head. This ones above my head but Mr. Narrator has the most soothing, comforting voice. You can hear his smile. These ones, that I don’t quite understand, I still like to listen as I relax in bed. It’s like the comfort of a loving parent telling me a bedtime story…or at least how I imagine that might be.
I agree! Very soothing voice, yet very knowledgeable and informative!!
Btw Mr Narrator's name is
Alex McColgan! I've subbed for years. Love his material
Hhaha yes!
becuz understanding topics like these requires knowledge in quantum mechanics, which not everyone has.
Way way over my head also. But very nice to lie in bed and listen to before sleep.
I wholeheartedly agree! So, all we can do is simply understand what we can, and meditate on what we can’t until, eventually, things become clearer……..hopefully! 🙏🙏🙏
I think the simplest answer is that it happened this way and we are here to speculate about it because if it didn't happen that way we wouldn't be here to speculate about it. All the times where it wasn't perfectly balanced and there was no life to speculate and the infinite time passed until one day someone was there to speculate about it again. Whether it be through multiverse theory and that there are infinite universes with different parameters and we just got lucky to be ones that exist in a Universe with this perfect balance, or if the Universe is somehow cyclical and restarts after a period of time resulting in different physics or different densities of matter, anti-matter, energy, and dark energy until one millennia comes along where once again there's a perfect balance of everything that supports life again which can contemplate existence. However, if this is the first time the Universe ever spontaneously started, and there has never been and will never be another Universe, and there has never and will never be a multiverse, then I struggle to even comprehend the unbelievable, totally unrealistic, improbable luck that it would take for the Universe to... Happen at all, let alone structure itself naturally in such a way as to be perfectly tuned for a Universe that can support life and then evolve to a point that can speculate about the nature of reality.
I of course would love it if we could discern the truth, but I think that there's likely a lot of things about existence that we'll never be able to solve and understand - cursed to speculate forever.
Don’t forget the simulation hypothesis!
we are only here now. could we have existed earlier in the universes history? no. will be able to exist in the deep future? no. as for multiverses i think they occur one after the other and not all at once.
You are describing the anthropomorphic principle. There are only two possibilities. 1: The event of the Big Bang has occurred, for all intents and purposes, a nearly infinite number of times. However If the ratios of strengths between the forces were randomly set each time, then that rules out the event occurring sequentially, as the first time the ratios resulted in the universe not collapsing back in on itself (or otherwise resetting back to its original state which would necessitate another Big Bang) would end the sequence. Thus, all possible universes, a nearly infinite number to make this one with its anthropomorphic ratios of forces an even barely acceptible possibility, must have emerged simultaneously. Hence; the multiverse theory.
2. The universe was created by something that existed prior to or outside of the universe.
Which is more likely? Perhaps unknowable, but as far as I can tell, only the latter has any evidence. The first option is only necessary as a consequence of utterly ruling out the second possibility entirely, for which there is no justifiable reason other than personal desire for an existence that arose from essentially nothing. One must, for whatever reason, prefer a universe with no purpose or meaning underlying its existence. With this as one's starting point, any conclusions at which one arrives are founded in a dishonest bias against what is otherwise an obvious truth.
@@reshpeck wanting an answer to be correct isn't how things work. What evidence is there that there is anything external to the universe? Us inside it having this conversation? A desire for there to be a purpose? Then of course there's the question what made the thing that made the universe and the unsatisfactory answer of it made itself or have a thing above the thing do the thing. Not knowing isn't a flaw it is a drive to find out.
And God said "I created the universe in ways to confound wise men's understanding of it" who ever wrote that one sure got it right.
I'd like to offer a comparison to demonstrate how I think about both dark matter and dark energy: Several centuries ago, all observed phenomena in the universe and the then current understanding of physics seemed to indicate that there had to be some sort of "medium" filling empty space in order for light to be able to travel through it. Thus, scientists theorized what became known as the "luminiferous ether".
As time went on, the results of ever more sophisticated measurements were not only unable to detect any trace of the luminiferous ether, but forced scientists to attribute ever more arbitrary and paradoxic properties to the ether so that it still fit into the framework of their understanding of the laws of physics. It required a whole new sort of physics to understand that they had misunderstood the properties of light in the first place and that no luminiferous ether had ever been necessary to explain anything.
Today, all observed phenomena in the universe and the understanding of physics that we have seem to indicate that there have to be some sort of forces that act in a way to distort gravity. Some seem to increase it, some seem to work in the opposite direction. Thus, scientists theorized both dark matter and dark energy, to explain those forces. As time went on, the results of ever more sophisticated measurements were not only unable to detect any source of the either force, but forced scientists to attribute ever more arbitrary and paradoxic properties to dark energy and dark matter, so that they still fit into the framework of our understanding of the laws of physics and the observable effects in the universe.
I am of the opinion that it will require a similar shift in our understanding of gravity to make us realize eventually that no mysterious extra forces have ever been necessary to explain anything. It's just that we have misunderstood (or not yet fully understood in the first place) the true nature of gravity. I'm very excited to be alive right now because I hope to witness this coming paradigm shift of physics in my lifetime!
I agree, maybe we can't understand gravity at large scales yet
What do you think of the electric Universe
@@stingingmetal9648obvious pseudoscience
Well said. Let's not believe in something unless we can detect & quantify it.
The entire second half of that is fiction. The evidence for dark matter and energy is only getting stronger, while nothing was ever found to support the æther. It's the alternatives to dark matter that ascribe arbitrary, unobserved properties to gravity
Brilliant video man! Keep it up!
I watch this channel every single day, mostly because it helps my anxiety so much- & tbh I never get sick of it!! Thanks for being such a a significant part of my day.
Mix in some funny Cat videos and you'll really have it made. That's what I do
Anxiety about what!?
The issue with deciding the universe's hospitality to (our) life is too spot on to be a coincidence, so it must have been designed, is that the idea should probably also apply to the universe such designer resides in.
I always knew the universe was expanding but this video has truly explained why to me. This was extremely interesting and I enjoyed your video Astrum. 🔥🤙
I have never ascribed to dark energy, but Alex had my ear for a few minutes. We will see how it turns out.
I love your videos, I always learn something new!
Thank you for your content, Astrum! 🖤💜💙🖤
Always a good day when astrum drops a video
Same /tip hat
Their has to be a designer,and he's called GOD ..
@@christophercroxson9724 you dont have to tell me man I'm christian
@@christophercroxson9724 Nope just Greed....For money....For Power over Others.
Thanks for another banger alex ❤
Cant wait for Part 2!!!
Perhaps what happened is a bunch of universes created in succession that all failed (eventually imploding) until one, ours, that by chance happened to have certain parameters just right for galaxies to form and life to eventually appear. But of course, our universe might very well be just another iteration in this process and we haven't yet realized it...
Yeah I can imagine that too. That the dark energy is super high imploding the universe. But i envision than the dark matter spreading out as it is pushing everything away that its energy on our universe matter becomes less, repeating this process until we are at the current point.
Now I'm worried for the rest of the day :)
I actually quite like this idea. Sort of like an evolutionary cycle but for universes. I mean it happens for life why not? Interesting to think about!
Maybe. But the question would then be how and why are universes being created out of nothing?
It's possible that you could multiply quadrillion by the number of atoms in the universe and then multiply that by the largest number ever conceived and even that many years Google there was something going on and somebody existing
What I really like is that it seems there's no end to our quest, There will always be something to challenge us and it seems science, with all its power, can´t answer everything. Wouldn´t be annoying to think there is nothing left to discover? Even if our assumptions are wrong, let them be. In time we may be able to correct them. What an adventure!
As long as humanity is finite, as long as humanity is unable to travel back to the beginning, we will always have something new to discover.
I agree we will die out before we ever even get close to figuring it all out
I think there is a problem in science, and physics in particular, were there's a temptation to make predictions WAY beyond what the reliable evidence supports or suggests, and that temptation comes from three places.... (1) the desire to be right, and not have to abandon a theory you've spent a decade or more working on (2) publish or perish and (3) funding and fame.
Just because it makes the maths work doesn't make it real.
Also the chances are we're just wrong about everything, and by that I mean two things, the first is we're just wrong because we don't know what we don't know, and the second is a lot of the "facts" that scientists claim to know are not ever going to be 100% accurate, in most cases it's good enough, but not in all.
However there's always going to be phenomena that will not behave as predicted, (some that we are not even aware exist yet) because even a small difference between what we think the value of something is, eg the speed of light or the gravitational constant at say the 10,000,000th decimal place is off, could have an effect on some other phenomena that in a special case becomes an amplified observable result.
Your are right-on!
I think the bigger issue is language and media , scientists are VERY clear about what we know and levels of certainty and do not overstep those bounds , in fear of being academically shunned
It is when conveying this top level science using human language and doing so to the public and especially when it is being broadcast on you tube or the local media the distortion comes into play
For example not one physicist would ever claim that all known existence started at a specific point with the big bang, they would describe specific attributes of our universe beginning at various phases, for example light , baryonic matter, time , etc.
We can not detect a point without a universe or before a universe , nobody claims to have
It is just that most common people believe time is real , physicists do not, every instant is separate from those previous and those following, time is the arbitrary rate of intervals we create , 1 second could be redefined as one year or 5 minutes or whatever
Beyond that we have already discovered and have empirical evidence for parts of the universe's past in which we could never exist , so for us a universe of pure radiation is not a universe we could inhabit , so did the universe exist then? Sure as a radiation cloud or soup , but isn't something we could ever observe or move through or exist in or survive
Vanity especially in this day and age. Way more likely to be wrong too.
Exactly dark energy is nothing but a placeholder put an equation to try to balance out the unknown and then people think it's some physical cloud that exists
@@XxxXxx-br7eq But the universe is expanding
It’s also pretty clear from the “crisis in cosmology” that our measurements of the expansion of the Universe are flawed. I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually the theory of dark energy is overturned.
Agreed! Pretty sure we need to redo the lambda-CDM model in a fundamental way, but more than anything we need more data. We need JWST and many more powerful telescopes.
I agree actually. We can barely assess proper size and distance of stars within 100 light years. I'm hard pressed to believe we are great at the universes expanse, mass and speed...at present.
@@spacedave2000 in some ways it's easier to make the claims with objects much further away, because the numbers get so big in relation to each other that the spread in probability for accurate measurements of discrete objects no longer matters. E.g. it doesn't matter if a star is 80 light years or 120 light years away, or that a distant galaxy is measured as between 10 million to 20 million light years away, when we're talking about 15 billion light years.
There is no crisis in cosmology. There are just some who understand and others who don't.
The universe obviously isn’t static so removal of dark energy from the equation would be most surprising.
Great stuff dude, rock on.
The Anthropic principle. We exist in a universe where we CAN exist. If it were a universe, no matter the 'likelihood' of whatever conditions, that precluded life, there would obviously be no one to ponder the 'WHY' and 'HOW' of that universe...
Edited version: This comment has elicited more responses than most of my others COMBINED. It has been critically commented on from both the scientific and religious minded.
I didn't invent the principle. It is not faith based. Dr. Steven Hawkings wrote about it in some of his books. If people wish to argue with him, be my guest.
It is simple and logical... and unprovable.
It is like saying a dictionary can't exist unless language does too. We exist, the Universe does too...
Scientists think philosophy answers the hard questions, but really it's psychology that prove half the stuff we believe is nonsensical. You don't know anything if you don't conquer cognitive biases first.
Edit: People below don't realize the Anthropic Principle is a science. AP = survivorship bias = cognitive bias = cognitive SCIENCE.
@@dangerfly I second that sentiment
The real question I think everyone wants to know is, what happens after we die, Do we still "exist"?
@@weedblaze9288The fact that you want to know automatically means you’re biased. You don’t care about mosquito heaven. No science, philosophy, voodoo needed. If we can’t be honest to ourselves about the most obvious things then that’s simply LOW emotional intelligence.
I had the same idea. Still I can't stop pondering the question, if life/structure/processes in such a different universe would be so much different from our current viewpoints, that we just couldn't imagine it with our puny brains and the limited sensorical sensations we can perceive.
Looking forward to the next video on this topic! 🎉❤
Interesting content and amazing video graphics !
I think douglas adams puddle analogy explain it best. I think it couldn't have been in another way than what it is.
I think maybe even though we think we’re remarkable, perhaps in the great expanse of our universe there’s things more astounding than life or sentience. We’re amazing to us. The universe is perfect for everything in it basically.
Idk life in particular seems objectively the most complex thing in the known universe but the awareness of perspective is important yes
There are things, principles, that can't be measured (yet) like consciousness and evolution.
We see here on Earth that evolution has been working but maybe it also exists at the largest scale?
Universes forming and malfunction because not the right proportion of powers. New universes form that get better and better in fine-tuning the forces. Now we have life but it seems there are still too much dangers that can make life impossible like radiation.
Maybe there will come another universe after the one we know, which is even more adjusted to make life possible.
This channel has risen really quickly to the top must-views for me!
Thank you for addressing these deepest mysteries. The apprehension of mystery is the fundamental posture of the human intellect.
Here's the issue that I feel is constantly overlooked; The universe was vastly different at different parts of its development. The universe only has to be at the state in which matter was formed when matter way forming. It's perfectly reasonable for our observations NOW not to match what happened THEN. It's the same reason people can't understand how Stone Henge was built; observer bias. If an observer has no evidence that certain techniques were used, they tend to believe that people at the time were too stupid to have done it themselves. Instead, they're lacking information and refusing to acknowledge it.
The odds of us being in a universe that supports our form of life are exactly 100%.
If you have more universes in your data sample, you can possibly reduce that.
Agreed. Well concluded
If you averaged it across all possible life forms and all universes, you would probably see it will approach to close to zero probability of life, i.e. failed universes just having boring interactions.
God exists so existence must exist and there'll be a way for it to make sense (but maybe hard for everything to make sense with our 4D brain until we are in the higher dimensions after earthly death)
You deserve a nobel prize for these videos. Your explanations are perfect!
I love how accessible the insightful, interesting scientific comments are on CZcams, I definitely don't need to dig miles of clowns to find one
Thank you. Your video was well explained and depicted. Deut. 29:29 came to mind.
Also .... Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
The fact that we're lucky that our universe exists is "lucky" from just our viewpoint. Who's to say that there haven't been innumerable universes before us that weren't so "lucky" or universes that also got "lucky" and had beings who were capable of conscious thought processes, that we just don't know about? Also, the information that we're able to process are limited. We're limited by our dimension, physical capabilities and our consciousness. There could very well have been other universes in the past or the future, or in any stream of time that we don't comprehend due to our limitations, that processed information differently because they had a different kind of "consciousness". That different kind of consciousness could process information better or worse than we can, could feel things differently with different senses that we don't possess or understand, and could therefore know and understand either more or less than we do. Imho the idea that we're "lucky" is a very anthropocentric and limited way of thinking, in a way. It would probably be more accurate to say that we could be _one of the lucky ones_ who had this particular universe evolved, and then we got to possess a kind of consciousness that allowed us to be able to process information
That.
But there's another option:
Those "lucky values" can't be different. Therefore the chance always was 100%.
We simply don't yet know enough to even say which is the case.
@@kgswshumans will never understand why or how we exist. It's possible that you could multiply the number of atoms in the whole universe times itself and go back that many years and there could have been something going on that we don't know about. I think it's silly for people to think that humans are powerful enough to know the truth about existence whatsoever. We don't even know 1 trillionth of 1% of reality never mind all of it. I understand there are intelligent people that pay attention to stuff like this cuz you know what I have a pretty darn high IQ myself anything even that's extremely complex that I have attempted to learn but that is absolute comes very easily to me. There is nothing anywhere remotely close to absolute about understanding existence of energy time and matter.
@@kgswshumans will never understand why or how we exist. It's possible that you could multiply the number of atoms in the whole universe times itself and go back that many years and there could have been something going on that we don't know about. I think it's silly for people to think that humans are powerful enough to know the truth about existence whatsoever. We don't even know 1 trillionth of 1% of reality never mind all of it. I understand there are intelligent people that pay attention to stuff like this cuz you know what I have a pretty darn high IQ myself anything even that's extremely complex that I have attempted to learn but that is absolute comes very easily to me. There is nothing anywhere remotely close to absolute about understanding existence of energy time and matter.
@@XxxXxx-br7eq _humans will never understand why or how we exist_
Well, that's a broad statement.
In the past we did not know a lot we know now. And it gave us tools to learn even more.
So, i would not say that we will not ever know. But then, i would also not say we will ever know.
_It's possible that you could multiply the number of atoms in the whole universe times itself and go back that many years and there could have been something going on that we don't know about._
How do you know it's possible?
_I think it's silly for people to think that humans are powerful enough to know the truth about existence whatsoever._
I think it's silly to think that we can't ever know.
_We don't even know 1 trillionth of 1% of reality never mind all of it._
What do you mean? Like position of all atoms? Well then, that would be true.
Or do you mean physics and / or math? Since in such case we don't know how much we don't know. We could be close to explaining everything, or we could know even less than your number - we simply don't know.
So, your conclusion is too premature. Just like other peoples in history.
Always enjoy these videos. I think we should call it by what it appears to be - namely, we live in a universe that was designed.
Brilliant video. I've often seen "dark energy" and "dark matter" as long-form alternatives for scientists to "uh...we don't know". Whilst I still do believe that there are huge parts of our cosmic understanding missing, and that our reliance on mathematics to retrieve those missing parts may be fundamentally misguided, your videos don't preach any particular answer. Instead, they open the mind; and that is what all good scientific media should aim for. To inspire, not hector.
Keep it up Alex! 👍
We are star matter, coming from the big bang. The fact that the universe is able to think about itself (us) is immeasurably cool.
Thats not how it works.
@@captain_context9991 how does it work
@@tw1nn319
How does what work... The entire universe? Its a bit wide for a comment, isnt it.
@@captain_context9991 thank you captain context, very cool!
@@captain_context9991 I've never seen a question more eloquently answered before in all my days. It is abundantly clear now that you have left us mere mortals behind in your superior knowledge of the universe. Bravo, and thank you so much for sharing your invaluable insight and wisdom!
Its said expansion causes redshift, but could it be the other way around? Given enough time photons will redshift themselves out of existence. So photons seem to lose energy to the vacuum which we see as redshift. Could this not be dark energy? Photons leaking energy to the vacuum and effectively turning into more spacetime?
i agree, even intergalactic space has many particles in 1 cubic meter to absorb energy off of the photons
My goodness , are you doing your best to sound like Dr Kipping ? Well done because you got that jam. Brilliant vidoe i really enjoyed it.
Thank you for sharing.❤
Considering how we don’t have other universes to compare this with (not saying there aren’t, we just haven’t or cannot detect any others), it’s moot to claim that this universe “shouldn’t exist”. It does. Therefore, it should exist.
A lot of these speculations sound more like theology than actual science.
I don't see a problem with speculations sounding more like theology than "actual science". Some level of speculation (or thinking outside of the box) has always been part of the scientific process. Why rule out something simply because it sounds a little "theological"? That would be close minded in my opinion.
Either there is this one fine tuned universe with the probability that the physical constants would be set as they are, of 1 in 10^60, which is mind boggling; or there are a multitude of separate universes and we are in the one with the right physical parameters, which is mind boggling.
One leap of faith or another.
Or there have been countless big bangs with different physics and different outcomes. This one just fits. Having said that I don’t buy into the finely tuned universe scenario. It’s just the same as saying how amazing that the Earth is finely tuned for life with all the myriad factors that needed to be aligned for life to evolve. Ignoring the fact that most of the universe is hostile to life and that in the future it will all be gone. It’s pure teleology. As for the probability- it’s the same for any array of physical constants. The probability of tossing a coin and getting a hundred heads in a row is the same as any other calculated combination of heads and tails.
@@darwinsfishNo, it is finely tuned and consciousness is the fundamental unit and end-all-be-all of everything. The eclipse is a perfect marvelous alignment. Life is meant to be imperfectly perfect in many cases too
@@NE0Nwhip hippy dippy nonsense. As for your eclipse example, this is only temporary as the moon gets further away the eclipse will no longer be perfect. As for consciousness are we talking humans, dogs, elephants? Laughable reasoning with no evidence. I suspect a religious contamination here.
No. It isn't that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist it is that life is fine tuned to exist in the universe. Look up Douglas Adam's puddle analogy.
Besides, 99.99% of the universe will absolutely kill life as we know it. Not a very good job of fine tuning if only the smallest fraction of a percent has the conditions to harbor life.
My own take on it is that science holds a very important place in our understanding of the universe and our existence, it's helped explain a lot. But as humans we rely on it too much to the point that all we have are theories and we argue about whether we are here by accident or on purpose. I myself am not religious but I am open minded to the fact that we know very very little about our universe and even about ourselves. I don't know what life is about but I honestly appreciate the little moments in it and the beauty of this planet and if I'm here by pure coincidence then I am glad I have been able to view such a stunning planet and met some of the best people.
What a great attitude! I pray you meet God personally one day and thank Him for the beauty and the people He's sent your way.
@daleniksch2124 thank you friend I appreciate your kind words 🖤
Am I correct in thinking that time must have preceded multiple dimensions?
Because without time there could only be one dimension - a point taking up no space.
In a three dimensional universe, or even a two dimensional universe , you must have time , because without it how can you appreciate movements through space like up / down, side to side and backwards and forwards.
Any ideas?
Questioning the likelihood of our universe is like rolling a dice a million times and questioning how likely it was that the exact order of rolls happened.
I think it is just coincidence after all
If a multiverse exists than our universe is inevitable
True and the fact we are here to contemplate this is proof that things turned out as they have turned out... asking "why" is quite irrelevant.
@@sebastiaanfraikin9360 asking why is called science, as opposed to your philosophy / ideology.
@@gravitonthongs1363 asking HOW is science, asking why is moronic. I'm not philosophic but adhere fervently to the scientific method my friend ☺️
@@sebastiaanfraikin9360 scientists ask why and explain how. Saying “just because” is not a scientific answer.
It’s funny, at 5:59 I can here the edit where your originally said “Pull the universe apart” but changed it to “push”. I like the correction, it’s minor but very important.
What happens IF space is an acting participant and not a simple backdrop?
I postulate that general relativity did not dig far enough in the relationship between space and matter, confining space in only three spacial dimensions. What IF space has more dimensions and matter is acting as counter weight for other spacial dimensions from expansion BUT with matter being diluted with the expansion of the three spacial dimensions, other compressed spacial dimensions are trying to expand?
IF you rewound the clock to the point of inflation, we may able to see a one dimensional space expand to a two dimensional space further expanding to a three dimesional space of the present.
I don't know if it was intentional, but I like that the thumbnail can be interpreted as the universe self-creating.
God needs reflections in order to know God. So therefore much exists and we are a part of those reflections. (Which makes religion such as Christianity invalid because we're not condemned. Life is full of valid and acceptable possibilities and our souls recycle our experiences)
This is totally worth watching a couple of times. The subject is a real work out for the imagination. Here is a strange thought. To make an observation at the edge of the atomic level is no different than to make an observation at the edge of of the universe. There will always be something beyound. Question, Is consciousness a force?
Or watch it once on 2 phones for that 3D/Stereo effect!
Yes I believe that consciousness is a force, I believe it interacts with the quantum field. Obviously I have zero proof of this, it's just what I believe.
Every time I see those depressions in the fabric of space in vids like this, I wonder what's on the other side that depression is sinking into and whether or not it's another universe or something else.
Either way, I think Dark Energy has always been a placeholder for "We don't know what's doing this" and is probably completely wrong. It'll take a genius like Einstein to see it for what it really is and who knows how long it'll be before the world sees another like him.
The graphs of spacetime are misleading because it's attempting to project a 3 dimensional space as a cutout, there's not really a good way to visualize curved spacetime without resorting to lesser dimensions or slices of the whole. When mass distorts the spacetime it's creating a depression or warping in all directions, not just pulling "down" in a single direction. You have to picture what they're showing on the graph depiction as accurate for only one single perspective/direction, in reality that same effect is happening in a perfect sphere in all directions. The effect is "relative", but we can only attempt to draw it/animate it from a single perspective at a time.
But yes you're basically right about dark energy, it's called "dark" because we haven't figured out its source or what causes the effect, we just can observe its influence. Similar to gravity (though we understand that one a little bit better). You might also call it "invisible" or "unknown" or "hidden" energy, but the term "dark" is what they're using. As soon as we figure out how it actually works and what's creating it, it'll probably get a more appropriate name.
@@futuza But when it's a black hole the appearance of it "going somewhere" or punching through the fabric of space (to somewhere else) is even stronger. If space is weak enough to get warped just by gravity it doesn't seem likely that a black hole causes an infinite pocket of space rather than tearing it apart to somewhere "outside". It's weird but maybe thats why they haven't figured it out yet. 🤷🏻♂️
@@zeuslgnAgain the graph is misleading nobody assumes that black holes punch or stick into space time , they just get denser , infinitely so . Imagine instead a bowling ball the outside is the normal bowling ball resin as you move closer to the center it turns to iron and then to lead and so on until you reach infinite density, the reason they don't hold up bowling balls is you cannot * see. * the density
I don't know what the idea is, but life has adapted itself to be finely tuned to survive in our environment. I highly doubt that is the other way around. Besides, how can we possibly say with any amount of, much less, absolute certainty that any given conditions would not be able to support some type of life we cannot fathom? There was a theory that, although it was disproven, we had discovered bacteria that was arsenic-based! Who's to say, that in a different universe with varying differing fundamental quanta such as a different speed of light, that some lifeform we're not even capable of even fathoming let alone understanding, could evolve?
I totally agree with all the logic and and sense behind this, this makes perfect sense to me, thank you, I definitely agree with you.
Hey there Alex. I love the content that you produce. It incites a sense of wonder and thought. The great Arthur C Clarke explored the idea of humans tapping into "the energy of the vacuum" as the means for interstellar travel in his 1986 novel "The Songs of the Distant Earth" (heartbreaking yet hopeful story about our distant future). I can't help wondering whether dark energy could be a resource for the humanity's benefit. I'm not a scientist, especially not a theoretical physicist, so please don't laugh at my naivety. However in my reasoning, if there is an abundance of energy in our universe, we could make use of it. I'll let you and the rest of the viewers of your channel comment on this idea.
When most Christian’s hear about the Big Bang theory they get upset or automatically shut it down. When I (I’m a Christian) heard about it tho, I was shocked. I think that nothing could fit more with the creation story than God saying “Let there be light!” And the universe exploding into sudden existence in a fraction of a second. God literally spoke it with a bang! I just think it’s awesome to imagine even if it is just a theory.
The Big Bang was first described by a Catholic priest, not a coincidence
This exactly how I imagine it too...just his voice released so much energy and birthed the entire universe ...and some things he reveals to us through scientific discovery and others through spiritual exploration of his word, the Bible
I’ve always said my God is BIG and when He snaps his fingers it goes BANG. Physicists now agree that there was something there, possibly forever. The “big bang” is just the expansion of what was already there so
@@bryeh.7940 If the Big Bang was as perfect as scientists say it was then I think it just goes to show that it’s a probable creation method. Why described it something that is admitting to Godlike perfection 🤷♂️
I'm happy there are other people like I am lol, thank you for existing.
Space itself and every object discovered in the univers we've studied so far is completely incompatible with life as we understand it. That's not to say there isn't life out there but that the kind of life we have requires conditions that are extremely rare. There may be other forms of matter we'd define as life we haven't discovered yet or even theorized
You are right. The conditions that gave us life might be different in other cases.
This is why the Fermi paradox is non existent
Not only is our earth insanely rare , our universe is dynamic , and earlier epochs of the universe were fully inhospitable to life , as will future epochs
There is no grand design for life to occur , we just happen to be taking advantage of one of the sweetest spots at one of the universally sweetest times , let's enjoy it and not waste it won't last long 🎉
@@knyghtryder3599it's extremely possible that now and many trillions of years in the past and future life has existed in multiple universes
@@XxxXxx-br7eq Sure and all we need is a scrap of evidence for those other universes and then subsequent evidence for the possibility of that life in them
Picture the simple stretched sheet model. Place a heavy object in it... and so on. Now, below the sheet is a much larger ball. Inflated to a very low pressure and it's very surface is slightly attracted to the first object allowing it to maintain it's position. Further away from the center of that mass under the sheet would cause it's slight attraction to actual repel.
Until we have a quantum gravity theory or a theory that explains both we are only left with two options, and both involve the antropic principle: Either it was so particularly low because of other yet-unknown mechanisms or there are many multiverses and we just happen to live in a viable one.
Here's another option:
Those "lucky values" can't be different. Therefore the chance always was 100%.
We simply don't yet know enough to even say which is the case. And i would not be surprised if there are many more options we can't yet even imagine.
Dark energy is information. Information is the field. We tune into this field through what we know as consciousness.
Our consciousness is just a pattern forming on the field.
Probably
It isn’t just the amount of dark matter that appears to be “tuned” to allow us to be here. It has long been argued that there are a number of cosmological constants (such as the planck constant, the gravitational constant, or the speed of light) that would prevent star (and therefore life) formation if they varied by as little as 1%. Following this path leads to the weak and strong anthropic principles. Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes and this one just happens to have all the properties required to allow life, while others don’t. Perhaps this “tuning” is evidence of God. Perhaps the universe requires an observer to be present to collapse all the waveforms into observable objects. Perhaps there is only you, and all the rest is a figment of your imagination. Perhaps all of the above are true, and shift depending on your perspective. Take your pick.
"Perhaps there is only you, and all the rest is a figment of your imagination." Then one is a simulation (matrix). I'm starting to believe this to be true.
@@jancurtis7827 Statistic probability of this being true is 50%. With binary computers the smallest possible increment is 1. Perhaps in the “unisim” computer it is one of the universal constants.
Complete rubbish and thought experiments. If something was different, then things would be different. Things are the way they are, so there it is. Who the hell are you to say the entire universe could have, or should have been different.
@@captain_context9991 Who the hell are you to say it shouldn’t be different? Don’t know means don’t know. Everyone is free to pick their poison. Criticizing someone elses choice just shows your arrogance.
@@Simple_But_Expensive
This idea that you think you are free to just come here and pick your own reality is just so weird... Its an american individualism gone crazy. Its cognitive dissonance as a lifestyle choice.
This leads directly back to American society today existing in a state of post-truth. A country in which nothing is really real, or truly true anymore. Anything goes. Anyone feels equally qualified to decide what their own reality should be... And expect it to stand side-by-side, and have equal rights and validity as any international team of HUNDREDS of researchers and scientists have agreed upon after decades of research in tens of countries.
And here comes a random housewife in Texas with her own version. Its a cultural thing, dude. Its also what gives rise to every single conspiracy, and extremist idea coming out of America.
Even though your video was captivating to watch and really interesting as love watching videos like these, but the graphs and equations were well out of my league to understand but hey at least I learnt something.
Great videp
No doubt, we live in a place in time we don’t fully understand. I believe we severely underestimate how extensive space is beyond what we can see or detect. And yes, we appear to live in a finely tuned area of space time. Or space and time are so vast that what has happened (appearing finely tuned) here just falls into the normal range of what is generally possible. So the answer is we may never know.
I think we just adapted to the universe we are in. It's not the pond that was shaped by the water, but rather the water that adapted its shape to that of the pond.
I don’t think that reasoning works well in this case. You have to have a pond before you can adapt to it. My guess is evolving universes via blackholes or multiverse theory.
From a theological standpoint, "intelligent design" is a horrendously weak and irrational argument. The "pond analogy" demonstrates a certain aspect of the extreme anthropocentric biases that give rise to such unfounded belief.
I’ve never found the pond/puddle analogies compelling, as in both, we are left with the question of "why was the pond/hole there in the first place?"
While it’s true that the universe must be suited to human life for us to exist, if those conditions are truly so improbable, it naturally demands a real explanation. This is one area in which I think modern science is on a bit of shaky ground as it attempts to portray metaphysical, even quasi-theological concepts as "science" when they’re really more like philosophy.
@@skateboardingjesus4006 non "anthropocentric biases" also have a name, and they're called nihilistic biases. There's no such thing as not biased.
If I hit a bullseye, you're likely to say "well that spec in the center is every bit as likely as every other spec on the dart board. There's really no distinguishing between the two; They're both just as rare." and indeed you'd be correct.
The ratio of dark matter to matter, or whatever other fundamental you'd like to fiddle with is "just as rare" as the one we are currently living in. But there are infinitely more of those "just as rare" individual cases than the one we're living in that sustains life.
The only way you can reasonably claim that the edge of the dart board is "just as rare" as the bullseye, is if you've already made the assumption that the bullseye has no value relative to the edge. In other words, you have chosen to believe that the advent of life has no value, and so there is nothing to distiguish the miriads of hypothetical universes without life from this one that does have life. You're making a circular argument.
"life has no meaning" => "this universe is not fundamentally different from others" => "this universe is no more rare than any others" => "this universe was not designed" => "there is no purpose to the universe" => "there is no purpose to things in the universe, such as life"
Question: Could Dark Energy simply be the "by-product" (or physical manifestation) of entropy?
We theorize that energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. But is there a zero-point, a state of existence, at which energy is no longer "viable" to be used for something?
A final waste product, the last dregs, ashes of what used to be energy & life....
Should this Energistic state be possible, would it not make sense that as the universe ages, more & more 'unviable' energy would accumulate as it gets "used." The accumulation of this mass would exert itself against the rest of the still-viable universe, forcing it apart.
In this way, we have an (admittedly poor) explanation for Expansion and the over-abundance of Dark Energy.
"All life comes from a single moment of creation. Some 3.8 billion years ago in some bubbling mud pot or deep ocean thermal vent. Some little bag of chemicals twitched and became animate and than miraculously reproduced itself. Everything that lives now on earth, or ever has lived, descends from that moment. We are all built from a single original blueprint. I don't believe there is a more important or remarkable fact in the natural world, indeed in any world, then that one." ~Bill Bryson
Dark Energy isn't a single phenomenon, but the observed net effect of multiple interacting forces and counterforces we are yet to identify. It's quite possible that the relative strengths of some of these forces have changed over time, and will continue to change into the future, which would mean it's not that the universe was made perfect for us, but that it is perfect right now.
It’s more likely a cumulative effect of everything that has ever happened.
IMO, clearly, existence always existed. How or why is a complete unknown and perhaps always will be. If at some point "nothing" existed then the propensity for something to exist still existed, and that propensity itself is still "something". The mystery is forever eternal, I think.
How does the propensity for something exist makes sense if there's nothing to exist? Sorry, doesn't make sense stating something like that without rational explanation. Simply, no human logic exist for any explanation, we just aren't capable of understanding it.
@@nikolas4347 You appear to have not gotten what i was saying there, read it again lol.
@@nikolas4347we have no evidence for the universe not existing, we have no evidence for creation, we have no evidence for a time before the universe, that is all made up religious mumbo jumbo
The universe was created, when we die I believe many of the unknowns will be answered.
@@petergriffin383 Not likely for either point
I thought the worst prediction was "Fusion Power will be viable in x years ... "
"Florida will be under water by 2009 due to global warming"
@@vilelucanobody said that lmao
No s#! +. I'm still waiting for my hovercar & those little tablets that turn into a four course meal. 😁
It has been "viable in X years" for 40 years.
@@TheByrd Pretty sure Al Gore said.
There is honestly no competing with you. Your videos are a gift to mankind. Never stop what you’re doing !
Really curious to hear what you have to say in your future video on the flip side of this topic.
The current debate over fine-tuning has now become a debate over the Many Worlds Hypothesis. In order to explain, fine-tuning, we are being asked to believe not merely that there are other unobservable universes, but that there are an infinite number of such worlds, and that they randomly vary in their fundamental constants and quantities. The Many Worlds Hypothesis is a back-handed compliment to the design hypothesis. For otherwise sober scientists would not be flocking to adopt so speculative and extravagant a view as the Multiverse unless they felt absolutely compelled to do so.
Yeah!
Your God doesn't exist but my infinite multiverse does 🤡
Sure buddy your infinite multiverse is somehow more believable than God because???
Infinite multiverses disprove abrahmic religion.
@@itsoblivion8124 lmao it disproves nothing cuz it's bigger leap of faith than believing in God
@@afrh9042 I never said it disapproves god but abrahmic religion. Imagine there's trillions of galaxies, billion trillion stars and centillion of planets in one single universe and there's infinite of them.
It's very iIIogical to think that a god created all of these things will be obsessed with women's clothing.
He gets angry if someone has doubt whether he exist or not!
You will find many teens who are way mature than abrahmic god.
Fine tuning also disapproves abrahmic god
My theory, is that dark energy is a property of the natural state of existence, that our universe inhabits. Dark energy is the canvass, the universe is the paint. This “canvass” is constantly stretching itself out, and with it, the paint. As the “paint” gets stretched out it will appear to be accelerating as time goes on, and it will also get fainter, until ultimately it approaches completely disappearing but never quite makes it. In other words, Our universe with its gravity our various mechanisms and matter, can superimpose itself on this canvass, and slow this expansion but only temporarily. Dark energy always wins. Gravity always wins is unique to our universe, and is no match for dark energy expansion, which is a more fundamental property, perhaps an inter-universal one. When all is said and done, the paint is stretched too thin to matter but the canvass is still there, ready for the next drop of paint (big bang)
We have it backwards here. Fine tuning dark energy to match the amount of matter/energy we have is nonsensical. What we have is a universe that has its energy/matter “fine tuned” to the amount of dark energy. Just like humans are adapted to the earth, not the other way around.
Thank you so much, I have a much better understanding of the power of dark matter. Lights came on in my head.
Awesome video, thank you man.
It seems to me that nature is governed by feedback loops; like orbits and atmospheres, including that stuff we call life. So I'm guessing that FB loops exist for universes and their properties as well. If the level of dark mater pressure were too great or too small, something would compensate, or adjust it to find a more stable system and that stable state would naturally provide a range of conditions that life is able to nestle into and do it's thing. Like a fungus or some form of organic oxide.
FB loops are very potent systems that never rest, every Planck tick they exert their influence with a constant adjusting like a master chef adding a pinch of Dark energy here and a drizzle of Matter there... Would a FB loop in fact be some form of entanglement? I wonder.
Question: Is it conceivable for there to be life made of dark matter?
As long as we have no clue what dark matter is (if it's a thing at all, not just our misunderstanding of gravity at large scales) the question doesn't make sense. Also the naming is very bad. Calling it dark matter suggests that we know what it is. Matter. But that's not case, it should rather be called USG (unknown source of gravity) or something like that.
@@Qrexx1 Physicists do have some idea of what dark matter is, even if they don't completely understand it. An "is it conceivable" question is valid, and an expert my have something intelligent to say about it.
I'm really leaning towards the 'rare Earth' hypothesis coupled with a 'rare Universe' theory. A one-in-a trillion planet in a one-in-a trillion universe. 'RARE' in this case would be the understatement of all times.
me too but I’m thinking infinity as opposed to trillions.
makes you fell special, does it? it must, that's the only reason for it. there certainly isn't any evidence to support it, just suppositions from people who ought to know better than to leap to conclusions.
this drivel shouldn't even be considered, let alone platformed.
I think that there is what i call a parent paradox. If you have a child you feel like, of course he/she is living and a breathing person with own consciouness and everything leading up to be that person. But if you are the child you feel like, how am I the consciouness in this body but not somebody else.
So if we think about the birth of this universe we think it as really rare. But what our 'parent' thinks?
I am not a native english speaker so i hope that you understand what i mean.
Ps. Here are the left over dots and commas .......,,,,,,,,,, feel free to drop those anywhere you wish.
Look at the skies, and you will know there is a intelligent designer.
Multiverse theory just feels like secular theology to me. I’ll never find it convincing.
If galaxies were to move away from each other at a constant velocity then the space between them (and the dark energy) would increase by the third power of time. This suggests an expansion rate faster than the exponential growth and possibly a finite escape time growth like the tangent function. It is hard to make sense of it but, the universe would become infinitely large and basically empty in a finite period of time. How dark energy grows as a function of available space should then also be a finely balanced function with embedded feedback mechanisms to avoid a finite-escape-time end to the universe.
Personally I think our understanding of the universe could just be us coming up with equations that show us what we see but they break down at a certain level and we might need lots more time to fully comprehend everything. I mean the universe has been around for billions of years and the fact that we have a understanding of it at all in this tiny fraction of time is a huge feat belittling I think there are probably flaws in our understanding. But I don’t know enough about it all to really matter and for all I know there could be something counteracting the dark energy. PS. I also feel like one equation being charged in a way that minor even be possible is not enough evidence for me. I want more proof of dark matter because that shouldn’t really be all our proof.
to be honest, I am really waiting to see (and hoping it will be known in my lifetime) how dark matter ACTUALLY affects us or can be used… because rn the whole dark matter thing feels VERY surreal and is not something my ape brain can understand
Jedi powers lol. solves the ancient alien thing too if some few could access it. Ok Ok tinfoil hat off.
Within my lifetime I want to see something that proves CPT symmetry wrong. Because I enjoy the chaos.
I'd settle for any convincing evidence that "dark matter" is anything more than a place holder for "we have no idea why our math is wrong".
@@michaelmueller260 Then you can settle, we already have that.
And that's the problem.
We know how gravity works *extremely* well. To the point where we can correct GPS systems to account for time dilation and we can predict the movement of celestial bodies to 15 decimal spaces. To the point where we can build detectors capable of detecting ripples in space-time.
On top of that we've already proven de existence of neutrinos, particles with some mass that practically don't interact with anything.
And on top of THAT we *do* see galaxies without dark matter, they behave the way they should under our understanding of gravity. Much lesser density, much slower rotation.
So. yeah. The evidence for some form of Dark Matter is pretty overwhelming... except for the fact that no amount of effort of our part has been able to actually detect any kind of dark matter particle.
Me too but the video was about dark energy not dark matter. ;)
It’s like winning the lottery; incredibly unlikely but it happens to someone somewhere quite regularly. No matter how unlikely an event is, given enough attempts it will happen. Naturally we wouldn’t be here to ponder this if we weren’t in the universe that “hit the lottery.” That leaves two options, intelligent design (whether a god like being or a simulation) or many worlds/universes.
What if it's both a god inventing multiple universes to find the one just right for life like Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb.
Thank you for a great video👌👌❤️
Another fascinating topic to ponder. I'm eager to see the second video.
I'm not discounting the possibility that the Universe was engineered in some fashion. After all, we have no reason to think this is the "first" universe and it's possible that an intelligence arose in a previous iteration (or iterations) of the Universe and figured out a way to transcend the natural life cycles of a Universe, engineering future ones into being habitable.
It's also possible that it's some form of survivor bias, like how we perceive the Earth to be too unique to be natural. What if these conditions are just a coincidence, both rare in that they're a small fraction but common in that the total of the fraction is gigantic, and we exist because it just happened to spawn this way. There may be an infinity of other universes that don't have these conditions and are just... barren. Or exist for a fraction of a second before collapsing, in an endless cycle of resets. That, or there's a greater force at work that we aren't yet aware of that makes dark energy appear in the proportions that it does, and that's what allowed the Universe to develop as it did.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg
Hearing and reading studies like this always makes me wonder, and yes I’m aware of his unfortunate history.
Love that.
Ridiculously silly, as this god from the glass of natural science is meaningless for religious people
The god in the glass of science is like a property of space or a discrepancy in the maths , it doesn't answer prayer or judge sexxuality or preference certain racces or cultures or condemn or judge so really has nothing to do with religion or belief as people know it
If god meant universal intelligence, some may accept reluctantly, but if god meant biblical god, then billions of people will find unbearable
I disagree,I'm still an atheist there is no god waiting 😊
@@unkind6070 that’s your choice.
I like thinking there’s a lot more we don’t know. A lot more we can’t see. A lot more going on with our own person we can’t even comprehend. Those are my choices though.😊
I mean the universe itself isn’t hospitable for life, no. If that’s what you meant by your immediate question at the beginning. 😂
For crying out loud,quite a bit of our own planet isn't.
And I shouldn't have been able to finish an entire box of Ben and Jerrys for breakfast and yet....here we are.
The universe is full of mysteries.
i love your consistency please keep it up ur vedios are the best my king
Certainely well designed by a devine creator. If we saw a beautifully carved piece of furniture or a beautiful gown we wouldn't expect they just popped into being. Someone surely manufactured them. Then how do we question whether or not there is somone who crafted the beautiful universe we all live in.
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. - Hebrews 3:4
"Let there be light..."
Because it's idiotic?
Thank the devine creator for: diseases, calamities, catastrophies, wars, meteor strikes and suffering you.
@@tomcollins5112 And there was Rock and Roll.
Nope, it's turtles all the way down.
I’ve seen Jesus play with flames in a lake of fire that I was burning in.
@robertdomergue1946 That happens during homofests.
Boarderlands 1 reference?
Saw that quote written on a wall and never thought anything of it. Just so random
YeA the universe is just on a sea turtles shell...
Yes. Yes it is.
Models are made from evidence, but held together by assumptions. Reshaping or replacing a model means challenging our assumptions. I wonder if we’re assuming that the early universe had a larger influence of fusion forcing together charged nuclei than it really did. What if the majority of early matter was neutrons undergoing beta decay? Then the energy needed to make larger atoms should go down and there would be less need to hunt for so much dark energy.
"there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"...
in other words, it may be our observations that are at fault.
or even, our ability to observe may be incomplete.
The more we learn about physics and our universe, the more it seems to be pointless to continue trying to understand it.
I agree.
On the other hand, how can you not look. All of it is so beautiful. More and more perfection.
Where I get aggravated is all the scientists rubbing their own tails about their discoveries and saying look what I found out and then later finding out, well maybe that wasn’t what I thought it was.
It is pointless, meritless, asinine, vein, to think you, or a computer could be the one to have all the answers. Smell the roses. That’s what we can do.
I still think dark matter/energy is just what happens when you can't measure everything with perfect accuracy on the scale of everything. There's so much stuff out there we can't detect accurately, if at all.
yeah but we CAN measure things with greater accuracy than the level which would give us an error margin this large.
However it came about, it happened, the probability is 1/1.
Any model that ignores that, has no observable basis in fact and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
They do serve however to reveal some of the nastier alternatives available to us.
Exactly this , we have absolutely zero evidence that the universe could be different than it is, a sample size of one, and an incomplete understanding of that one sample
Well it would be ideal also that gravity and expansion presure were equalized so othe planets and systems wouldn't be further away as time passes.
the universe was designed.we finally have someone who is on the right track.
If there is no life... there is no creation. You and I are created to witness this grand creation of the Creator. Nothing more...😊
By an incredible engineer 😊
It's the anthropic principle.
In the infinite multiverse, we are in one of the extremely rare universe where we could be.
Best (and most likely) explanation of gravity ever ! :-) ................... Complementary : What is not able to re-generate or multiply, will cease to exist (die). Consequently only "life" is left. ....... Nothing is "stable" long term. Everything either expands or contracts (like a fire in a woodstove). ........... And I do believe in the fundamentals of the "quantum" world beeing infinite by nature. As "finite" doesn't make sense (what's outside ?,...... what's it made of ?,.... we will break it down). ........ I do tend to think that "designed" is the more likly answer. By "God" ?.
If the existence of an observer causes the probability function to collapse and it doesn't even seem to be time-constrained, then the mere existence of an observer caused the universe to collapse into the version where the observer exists.
If there is a creation, there is a creator 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Because the views they espouse are based on receiving funding instead of actual science. It is a popularity contest not scientific method. They champion ideas they feel are popular even if they are wrong and denounce ideas they feel are unpopular even if correct in order to obtain funding, combined with a shameful refusal to simply admit that they were wrong. They have lost sight of the fact that discovering that you were wrong in your hypothesis is just as exciting as discovering that you were right because it is about finding the answer, not about being right or wrong.
it is human to not want to admit something you've dedicated your life to, that has become a part of your identity on so many levels (work, research, relationships etc) is wrong. it takes a very strong person to admit the past 10+ years of your life spent researching, believing, spreading your view to others has been totally wrong and a waste of time. it can break you mentally on an unexplainably deep level. so, it's not only about the money or being right, it's less malicious most times.. just fear.
@@fredd3.14 Fair enough, but it still circles back to the perspective of being right or wrong and that is what needs to change because their life's work and resources expended are not wasted or in vain from the perspective of finding the answer by ruling out a possibility and continuing the search.
@@chrisjohnson2460 Yes, I totally agree with both of your points actually. I thought about it too, that nothing is really a waste. maybe I should have worded that more like it gives a "meaningless" feeling, even if it is a false perspective
@@fredd3.14 It really isn't that difficult to change the status quo, just a little courage and determination. Similar to penguins waiting for one of them to go first, minus the threat of a waiting predator.
@@fredd3.14 Disproving a hypothesis is just part of science and is just as important.
What if the visible matter in the universe is just a byproduct of the dark matter? What if black holes are some kind of natural "valves" to regulate energy between the dark matter and the visible matter? What if the universe is infinite and has no end and no beginning?
We have the multiverse theory. If the energy density was so high that the universe as we know it ceased to exist, we wouldnt exist… and vice versa. That is somewhat of a satisfactory explanation, but one that I find unlikely. I find it more probable that the idealistic value of the energy density can be derived from the product of another underlying, apparently naturally occurring constant that we do not fully understand if at all: the fine structure constant.
I did an essay on the Anthropic Principal in school, and unfortunately, the guy who first suggested it decided he couldn't actually defend it logically. The idea that there was simply a "Cause" that could not be caused could not be tested, and therefore could not be relied upon.
However, as scientists discover more and more variables that dictate our existence to be highly unlikely, it becomes statistically impossible to reject the notion of a willful Creator. Even if you consider an infinite number of universes, there would be no guarantee our universe would exist within that mass. Not all haystacks actually contain needles, never forget! So, if our existence is only a one in umpteen trillions of a percent chance, statistically, there must be some force which fudged the probability. It is so much more likely that a Higher Power created the universe than us existing by pure random chance, I don't understand why more scientists don't accept that as an acceptable theory.
Our existence is a miracle by our own standards
It's an assumed "miracle" by the standards of the religious, not the scientific scrutiny that's done all the heavy lifting when it comes to explaining these things. Nothing has ever been factually explained by appealing to the irrationality of miracles.
If your great great grandfather were to sneeze at a different particular time and place than he actually did then there is an immeasurable probability that you wouldn’t exist. So yeah it’s kind of a miracle we’re all here. Science has proved the improbability of life
Going more into why the predicted quantum field value comes out so off, would be helpful. Frankly the number being so wildly off makes it look like our understanding of quantum fields just either doesn't apply here or is just really wrong since the value is nothing like the observed value. I know our attempts to turn relativity/gravity into a quantum gravity theory have also been pretty unsuccessful, this sounds similar - these large massive universal reaching fields likely operate far differently than the closer quantum effects like the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces do and perhaps we ought to be viewing the effect of dark energy and gravitational forces as in it's own sort of category, seperate from how the other forces work.
As you said we wouldn't be asking the question unless at least 1 universe could support life. Someone once compared this to a clothing store. How can there be a shirt that fits so well? Because there are 40000 in stock.